SUSHILA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, mother and respondents No. 4 & 5, her sons have played fraud of the highest order in this case. One Khacheru Singh died in the year 1985 leaving behind some agricultural land and two sons, who are respondents No. 4 & 5, Manoj Kumar and Raj Singh (Para-4 of the writ petition). It has further been stated in the said para that at the time of death of Khacheru Singh, his sons respondents No. 4 & 5 were minors aged 10 & 9 years, hence on 9.12.1986 his agricultural land was mutated in the names of both of his minor sons under the guardianship of their mother, Smt. Sushila, the petitioner (True copy of the khatauni is Annexure-III to the writ petition). She willingly accepted this position of guardianship of her minor children.

(2.) After attaining majority, one of the sons, i.e. Raj Singh entered into an agreement for sale on 1.9.1995 with one Vidyawati for selling his share in the agricultural land. In Para-7 of the writ petition, it is admitted that at that time he was aged 20 years. It has also been added thereafter that he was minor as age of majority is 21 years. This is an utterly absurd assertion. Age of majority is .18 years. Thereafter, petitioner filed mutation application asserting therein that her late husband had executed unregistered 'Will' of the agricultural property in dispute in her favour on 5.2.1984 (Case No. 24, Sushila v. Khacheru). Somehow she persuaded the Tehsildar to pass order of mutation in her favour dated 23.11.1995. The said order was challenged by Smt. Vidyawati by filing restoration application which was allowed and mutation order in favour of the petitioner was set aside through order dated 8.12.1995. The result was that mutation application of petitioner stood restored. Thereafter, on 1.7.1996, mutation application of the petitioner was dismissed in default. The assertion that on the said date, restoration application of Smt. Vidyawati was dismissed is utterly baseless as her restoration application had already been allowed on 8.12.1995 and thereafter it was the mutation application of the petitioner, which was pending.

(3.) Thereafter, on 8.11.2000, both the brothers, i.e. Manoj Kumar and Raj Singh, sold the agricultural land in dispute to respondent No. 3, Yogesh Kumar and his name was mutated through order dated 13.12.2000 (It appears that previous prospective purchaser Vidyawati agreed for this arrangement). Obviously till then, names of sellers respondents No. 4 & 5 were continuing in the revenue records. After six years, petitioner again filed an application before Tehsildar Hapur, District Ghaziabad on 7.4.2006. Tehsildar again obliged the petitioner and through order dated 19.6.2006 directing that the names of Manoj Kumar and Raj Singh should be expunged and name of the petitioner should be entered. Tehsildar did not realise that at that time name of respondent No. 3, the purchaser was entered in the revenue records and not the names of respondents No. 4 & 5. It is apparent that the Tehsildar conveniently ignored the said fact. Against orders dated 1.7.1996 and 19.6.2006, Yogesh Kumar, respondent No. 3 filed two appeals, being Appeals No .32 & 33, both of 2007 (It appears that as the order dated 1.7.1996 was being treated to be in favour of petitioner, hence appeal against the same was also filed).