HUKUM SHREE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dtd. 15/9/1998 passed by respondent no.3 namely Additional Collector, Etawah in Revision Nos. 2 and 3 of 1994-95 filed under Sec. 218 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Beni Madhau and others vs. Shankar Land and others). Revision No. 2 was filed against the order dtd. 13/6/1994 passed by the Tehsildar, Bharthana, Tehsil-Bharthana, District- Etawah and Revision No. 3 was filed against the order dtd. 5/5/1994 passed by the Bhulekha Nirikshak, Lakhna. Both the revisions namely revision nos.2 and 3/1994-95 were rejected by the Additional Collectors vide judgment and order dtd. 15/5/1998. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a Revision No.361-A/ 1998-99 was filed by the present petitioner in the Court of Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur, District Kanpur under Sec. 219 L.R., Act, the same was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur vide judgment and order dtd. 31/7/2000. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders namely the order dtd. 15/9/1998 passed by the Additional Collector, Etawah as well as order dtd. 31/7/2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Both the orders were arisen out from the mutation proceedings.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submitted that no writ petition lies against summary proceedings and in the present case mutation proceedings had been contested by the petitioners till the stage of revision and no writ petition lies against the order of revisional authority and the only relief can be claimed by filing a regular suit for declaration of title. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, petitioner has remedy of filing a declaratory suit for declaring his right under Sec. 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016.