Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Shyama Devi And Others vs Board Of

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5633 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyama Devi And 5 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Dinesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Kumar Yadav, counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act.
Before the mutation court, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest claimed mutation over the property recorded in the name of one Parsuram on the ground that she was the sister of Parsuram, who died issueless. This mutation application was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar. Other claims were rejected and the order of the Tehsildar upheld in appeal.
However, the order has been reversed at the revisional stage by the Additional Commissioner and the claim of the opposite party No. 3 has been accepted who was claiming to be son of Parsuram. The order has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue.
From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties relates to the parentage of the respondent, Pramod Kumar. Petitioner claim that he is son of Bhaiya Lal, the first husband of his mother Kakkoo.
The petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which proceedings are summary in nature. The findings returned in such proceedings are not binding on the courts in regular title proceedings in view of Section 40-A of the UP Land Revenue Act. Therefore, mutation orders passed in these summary proceedings, are subject to orders that may be passed in regular title proceedings.
Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a suit for declaration of their right, in the property in question and no useful purpose is going to be served by entertaining this writ petition and keeping it pending.
This writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners if so advised, may approach the appropriate forum seeking a declaration in their favour especially in view of provisions contained in Section 40-A of the UP Land Revenue Act.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Priyanka
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

Shyama Devi And Others vs Board Of

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 November, 2018
Judges
  • Anjani Kumar Mishra
Advocates
  • Rakesh Pathak Dinesh Pathak