Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5523 of 2021 Petitioner :- Satpal And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyavrat Tripathi,Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Srivastav
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition is filed against the orders passed by authorities below under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation which was decided against petitioners. Even revision filed by petitioners was also rejected.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a report of Lekhpal which supports contention of petitioners that they were in possession over the land in dispute for last 34 years which has not been considered in correct perspective by authorities below.
3. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents has disputed the veracity of said Lekhpal's report and submitted that proceedings under Section 34 of Act, 1901 are summary in nature and in normal course no writ petition is maintainable against summary proceedings. It is also pointed out that petitioners have filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the year 2015 which is still pending and, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is settled law that proceedings under Section 34 of Act, 1901 are summary in nature and no writ petition is maintainable against such proceedings except where there is error on jurisdiction or any procedural irregularity. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered this issue in Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others (Writ C No. 45595 of 2008), decided on 07.01.2020 and after relying on various judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court, has held as under:
"17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.
18. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
6. In view of above position of law and also considering that petitioners have already filed suit under Section 229-B of Act, 1950 for declaration, this writ petition is not maintainable.
7. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 AK