Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12472 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Devesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri Rajesh Kumar, the learned standing counsel.
This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 19.10.2014 and 7.10.2016 allowing the mutation application of respondent no.5.
Petitioner claims to be a recorded tenure holder of 1/6th share of plot nos. 1291/0.35, 1294/1/0.15 and 1294/2/2.10. The petitioner is alleged to have executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1991 in respect of the plot in dispute in favour of respondent no.4, who in turn claimed mutation under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act over plot no. 719 which was dismissed on 17.6.2008. Respondent no.4 executed a registered sale deed dated 14.10.2003 in respect of changed plot no. 1830 in favour of respondent no.5/Kanaklata. After denotification under Section 52 of the U.P. C.H Act, respondent no.5 filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was allowed on 19.10.2014. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order dated 19.10.2014 in revision on 7.10.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the correctness of the orders impugned on the ground that suit for injunction filed by the petitioner in respect of sale deed dated 27.12.1991 was decreed in his favour, thus the name of the petitioner was liable to be recorded in lieu of respondent no.5 whose title was under clout.
It is well settled that mutation proceedings do not decide title, same are relevant only for fiscal purposes. An order of mutation is subject to a decision in a suit. It is always open for the parties concerned to establish their right / claim before the competent court.
The decree is dated 6.12.2014 for injunction, not of cancellation of sale deed dated 27.12.1991 i.e., after order of mutation in favour of respondent no.5. Moreover, the said plea was also not raised at the revisional stage as is evident from the memo of revision (Annexure-15).
No good ground is made out to entertain this petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Chandra