REENA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.P. Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. In respect to the land in dispute , a proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act has been initiated between the parties to which an order dated 15.5.2000 ( Annexure no.5) has been passed by Upper Tehsildar, Tehsil Chibramau, District Kannoj. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act before the revisional authority/ Additional Commissioner (Administration) Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur, who dismissed the same by order dated 28.2.2003 . Thereafter petitioner again filed a revision ( Revision No. 128 (LR)/2002- 2003) before the Board of Revenue, dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2005 ( Annexure no.2) on the ground that second revision is not maintainable. Subsequently, petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 14.9.2005 before the Board of Revenue registered as Review No. 1780/LR/2005-006 ( Km. Reena Vs. Smt. Mauyra Shree), dismissed vide order dated 22.3.2010 ( Annexure no.1) .In view of the said background , present writ petition has been filed .

(2.) SO far as the order dated 22.3.2010 ( Annexure no.1 ) and order dated 14.9.2005 ( Annexure no.2) passed by Board of Revenue is concerned, I do no find any illegality or infirmity in the order rather the same is in accordance with law. So for as the order dated 15.5.2000 passed by Additional Tehsildar, Chibramau District Kannoj under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act as well as the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner(Administration) Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur in revision is concerned, they are also based on record.

(3.) IT is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court. The present case does not fall in any of the above exceptions.