Heard Shri Chandra Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.8 - Gaon Sabha and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Circuit Court, Agra (Respondent No.1) affirming the order dated 14.11.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra (Respondent No.2) arising the proceedings under Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar, Kasganj by means of order dated 31.05.1999 has rightly been directed to record the name of Kamta Prasad in place of Shakuntala Devi. The restoration application filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 02.07.1999 and the same was affirmed by S.D.M. in appeal vide order dated 03.04.2000, but the learned Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have illegally reversed the aforesaid orders and upheld the order dated 31.05.1999 in favour of respondent no.4 (Smt. Sheela Devi W/o Late Kamta Prasad).
The facts, which give rise to this petition is that the land in question basically belongs to Chunni Lal and after his death name of his daughter Shakuntala Devi was recorded in the Revenue record. After the death of Shakuntala Devi, mutation proceedings was initiated on the application moved by Kamta Prasad under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Vide order dated 31.05.1999, the Tehsildar (respondent No.3) has allowed the mutation application filed by Kamta Prasad and directed to record the name of Kamta Prasad S/o Munshi in place of Shakuntala Devi D/o Chunni Lal and W/o Suresh Chandra. Against the order dated 31.05.1999, Suresh Chandra has filed restoration application, which was allowed. Having been appeal filed by Kamta Prasad aforesaid order was affirmed by the S.D.M. vide its order dated 03.04.2000(annexure no.3).
Being aggrieved, Kamata Prasad preferred revision before Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra who has allowed the revision by order dated 14.11.2002(annexure no.4), which was affirmed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Circuit Court, Agra vide its order dated 15.10.2019(annexure no.6) and dismissed the revision preferred by the present petitioner.
The Revenue Courts have recognize the right and title of Kamta Prasad under Section 171 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which is a finding of fact and is subject to the scrutiny under the regular suit. It is needless to say that the proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, is a summoning proceedings and it does not confer any right and title in favour of the persons who has been ordered to be mutated by the Revenue Court. Any decision passed by the Revenue Court in the mutation proceeding, which is fiscal in nature, is always subject to the scrutiny under the title suit.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner has right to ventilate his grievance and to establish his right and title over the property in question by filing regular suit under Section 154 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
In this conspectus as above, without making any observation on the merits of the case as mentioned in the present writ, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed without any costs.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Zafar