BRIJLAL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ganga Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, the Gaon Sabha concerned and Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel who has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 4, Sudama Devi w/o Rambali.

(2.) The writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dtd. 4/6/2024 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1988 of 2024 under Sec. 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred against the order dtd. 30/4/2024 passed by the SDM, Mariyahu in Appeal No. 2209 of 2023 under Sec. 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, has been rejected and the order dtd. 30/4/2024 has been upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute relates to Arazi No. 88 area 0.016 hectare initially recorded in the names of Lalta Prasad and Indrajeet sons of Mata Prasad. The recorded tenure holders sold the aforesaid Arazi No. 88 to the respondent No. 4 Sudama Devi w/o Rambali by executing a sale deed dtd. 18/9/2020. Mutation proceedings under Sec. 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated by the respondent No. 4 before the Naib Tehsildar which proceedings were registered as Case No. 3449 of 2020. A report was called for from the Lekhpal and the Lekhpal submitted the report dtd. 3/11/2023 to the effect that demarcation of the Arazi No. 88 area 0.016 hectare was done by the Halka Lekhpal on 18/4/2022 and as per the report the entire area of Plot No. 88 was a road constructed by the PWD and the land was not being used for agricultural purposes. The vendor and vendee were not in possession over the plot and no mutation order could be passed in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner also filed objections to the Mutation Proceedings asserting that the Plot No. 88 was a public road and no mutation order could be passed in respect thereof. The husband of the petitioner also constructed a boundary wall by encroaching over northern patri of the PWD road. The petitioner had filed a complaint on the Chief Minister's portal and the PWD was ordered to take action. A notice dtd. 27/11/2020 was issued with regard to the encroachment over the PWD road. The notice was challenged before this Court in Writ-C No. 30 of 2021 which writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 19/3/2021 directing the State respondents and PWD to undertake measurement of the disputed plot and in the event the alleged boundary wall is found on the public land only then it may be removed. Thereafter a fresh report dtd. 26/5/2022 is stated to have been filed by the Halka Lekhpal stating that the entire land of Plot No. 88 was recorded as Sadak and no agricultural operation is carried out over the said plot.