RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a sale-deed was alleged to be executed on 6/6/2017 by petitioner in favour of respondent No. 5 in respect to Plot No. 1804 area 0.2430 hectare situated in Village-Kotia, Tehsil- Bindaki, District-Fatehpur accordingly a Case No. 1310 of 2017 Computerized Case No. T2017022543021310 under Sec. 35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was registered before respondent No. 4/Tehsildar on the basis of report submitted by Revenue Inspector. Petitioner filed his objection in the aforementioned case denying the execution of sale-deed dtd. 6/6/2017 mainly on the ground that respondent No. 5 got the sale-deed executed from petitioners in his drunken state of mind as well as stating that the land in dispute was mortgaged with the bank as such sale deed is hit by Ss. 10, 10-A and 10-B of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The respondent No. 4/Tehsildar vide order dtd. 27/12/2018 rejected the objection filed by petitioner and ordered to record the name of respondent No. 5 on the basis of sale deed dtd. 6/6/2017 in respect to plot in dispute. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 27/12/2018 passed by respondent No. 4/Tehsildar through appeal under Sec. 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which was dismissed by respondent No. 3/Upzila Adhikari, Bindki vide order dtd. 31/3/2023. Petitioner challenged the orders dtd. 31/3/2023 as well as 27/12/2018 through revision under Sec. 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent No. 2/Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/7/2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for following relief:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mutation order dtd. 27/12/2018 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur was illegal as the sale seed was barred by the provisions contained under Sec. 10 of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. He further submitted that Tehsildar (Judicial) Tehsil-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur has failed to examine the provisions of law and passed the order for mutation. He further submitted that mutation order has been maintained in appeal as well as revision in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that Civil Suit No. 434 of 2017 for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed dtd. 6/6/2017 is pending before the civil court as such Tehsildar can not pass the order of mutation. He further submitted that impugned orders passed by Tehsildar/ Sub-Divisional Officer/ Additional Commissioner be set aside the matter be send back before Tehsildar to decide the proceeding a fresh considering the provisions contained under Ss. 10, 10-A and 10-B of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.