Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2907 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 9 Othrs. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Board of Revenue which arises out of the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Challenging the order impugned, the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold. Firstly, it is contended that before proceeding to record the name of the purchasers over the land in question on the basis of the sale deeds dated 6.5.2008 ad 6.4.2010, no proclamation was issued by the Tehsildar and as such the petitioner i.e. the co-sharer was not aware.
The second limb of argument is that over the land in dispute, which was sold by the co-sharer, the petitioner has constructed his house and changed the nature of the land. In view of the nature of the land in dispute being 'Abadi', it was not open for the Revenue Court to entertain the application to mutate the name of the purchaser.
In so far as the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is noteworthy that the petitioner does not raise a dispute with regard to the share of the vendors who had executed the above noted sale deeds. The Board of Revenue has categorically recorded a finding with regard to the shares of the co- sharers. It is also not stated by the petitioner that the sale deeds were executed beyond the shares of the vendor.
Even otherwise, this Court in the case of Madhav Pandey & Ors.
v. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2002 93 RD 319 has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be ordinarily invoked by this Court in a matter arising out of the summary proceeding under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The reason being that by mutation in the revenue records, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the petitioner.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Babu Lal reported in 1977 (0) AIJEL-SC 28359, the ratio of which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the above noted reasons, first limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable.
In so far as the second submission regarding the land in question being 'Abadi' is concerned, it is categorically recorded by the Board of Revenue that there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
In view thereof, the jurisdiction of Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to mutate the names of the purchasers on the basis of a registered sale deed cannot be challenged.
It goes without saying that it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent Court of law. It is made clear that any observations made hereinabove would not come in the way of the petitioner in case of any suit filed by him in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Jyotsana