Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Shiv Brahma @ Shiv Brahm vs State Of U.P. Thru. Collector ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 January, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed praying for the following main relief:-
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party no.3 to make entry of the stay order dated 20.11.2020 in the revenue records of the Khata No.454 & 451 of the Village MalikmauChaubara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Raebareli as contained in Annexure No.3 to the petition."
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of respondent no.4 had been entered in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 06.12.2019. It has been submitted that the son-in-law of the petitioner Brijesh Kumar took the petitioner for treatment to Raebareli and fraudulently got prepared the sale deed on 06.12.2019 in respect of the whole share of the petitioner in Khata No.454 and 451 in the revenue records of Village Malikmau Chaubara, Pargana, Tehsil and District Raebareli. After knowledge of the alleged sale deed dated 06.12.2019, the petitioner filed a Suit for cancellation of sale deed which was registered in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raebareli bearing R.S. No.1634 of 2020. The said suit is still pending.
4. In the meantime, the mutation application was allowed. The petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 35 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Raebareli on 09.09.2020, which Appeal was registered as Case No.14. The SDO Sadar, Raebareli by order dated 20.11.2020 stayed the effect of order dated 29.02.2020 and also restrained the opposite party no.4 the petitioner's son-in-law from selling out the land in question or from changing its nature. The petitioner produced the order of the SDO Sadar, Raebareli, before the Registrar Kanoongo to make entry of the interim order in the revenue records but the same has not been done.
5. Hence this petition.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has asked for a mandamus from this Court, whereas there is no legal right of the petitioner to get the interim order in the pending Appeal to be recorded in the khatauni.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 25.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.19679 (Consolidation) of 2017: Brijendra Pratap Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Another.
8. This Court has perused the order dated 25.08.2017 which has been filed as annexure-7 to the petition. It is quoted hereinbelow in its entirety:-
"Heard.
The only grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the original order dated 30.12.2010 has been recalled on the application of the petitioners on 10.06.2011, but the entry made in pursuance thereof still continues, which could create complications, therefore, an entry based on the subsequent order dated 10.06.2011 should also be made.
Let the requisite entry in terms of the order dated 10.06.2011 also be made in the records, subject to any decision being taken by the Consolidation Court under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, unless of course, the order dated 10.06.2011 is no longer in operation or had not been passed. This aspect shall be verified by concerned authority before proceeding in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms"
9. From a perusal of the order dated 25.08.2017 relied upon by the petitioner, this Court finds that the order was passed after the recall of the petitioners were allowed on 10.06.2011. With regard to the order passed on 30.12.2010, since the order dated 10.06.2011 had recalled the order dated 30.12.2010 which was not in existence any longer, the Court had directed that a requisite entry be made in the revenue record subject to the decision being taken by the Consolidation Court under Section 9-A(2) of the Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner only wishes that interim order granted on 20.11.2020 staying the operation of the order dated 29.02.2020 during the pendency of the Appeal be recorded in the revenue records. Such prayer cannot be granted.
11. This petition is dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Rahul
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shiv Brahma @ Shiv Brahm vs State Of U.P. Thru. Collector ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 January, 2021
Judges
  • Sangeeta Chandra