JAGDISH NARAIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K. N. Saxena, for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Malviya, appearing for respondent No. 2.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 13th June, 2003 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) passed by Board of Revenue allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2 (Fazal Ahmad) under Section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the order dated 8th July, 2003 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) rejecting the review application filed by the petitioners for reviewing the order dated 13th June, 2003 of the Board of Revenue. The orders passed by Board of Revenue in revision arose from proceedings of mutation under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The application for mutation dated 16-9-1996 was filed by respondent No. 2 praying for expunction of the name of the petitioners from the land in dispute on the basis of the order passed by Civil Court in favour of respondent No. 2, which was affirmed up to the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 12-1-1987. The respondent No. 2 in the mutation application stated that the grove in dispute was purchased by respondent No. 2 on 11th April, 1968 in a Court auction sale, which was confirmed. The validity of the Court auction sale was challenged by the petitioners in the Civil Court on the basis of two sale-deeds of the year 1957 and 1959 which was decided in favour of respondent No. 2 up to the Supreme Court on 12-1-1987. The application further stated that on proceedings taken by respondent No. 2 in the Civil Court for giving Dakhal of the grove in question, orders were passed on 15-12-1995 to give possession and possession was handed over by the Amin of the Civil Court to respondent No. 2 on 16-12-1995. The application prayed that the names of Jagdish Narain and Jugal Kishore recorded in the revenue records on the aforesaid grove be expunged and the name of respondent No. 2 be recorded. The said mutation application has ultimately been allowed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned judgment against which present writ petition has been filed. It is well-settled that mutation proceedings Under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceedings which do not decide any title of the party and the writ petition challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings generally are not entertained by this Court, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as mentioned hereinaffer, and the chequered history of the case it is appropriate that submissions of Counsel for the parties be considered.

(3.) SRI Sharad Malviya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, refuting the submissions of petitioners, contended that all the submissions raised by the petitioners with regard to identity of the grove land and the validity of the auction sale in favour of respondent No. 2 has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of respondent No. 2 and the said question cannot be raised by the petitioners in mutation proceedings. He further submitted that in the suit filed by the petitioners being Suit No. 114 of 1970, the rights were claimed by the petitioners on the basis of their sale-deeds dated 22-12-1957 and 21-3-1959 attacking the auction sale in favour of respondent No. 2. The said suit having been dismissed after rejecting the contentions of the petitioners, it is not open for them to raise those objections in the mutation proceedings.