MOHAN MEAKIN LIMITED Vs. SULEMAN DABAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Himadari Batra for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Madnesh Prasad Singh for the private respondents.

(2.) This petition challenges the order dated 3 December 2007 as affirmed by the Additional Commissioner in terms of his order dated 16 April 2008. The orders themselves have come to be passed in proceedings initiated under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 19011.

(3.) According to the case set forth in the writ petition, the plot in dispute is initially stated to have been recorded in the name of co-tenure holders Sarfuddin, Allahraji and Meharuddin. The petitioner thereafter refers to various orders brought on the record by way of a supplementary affidavit to submit that Allahraji is stated to have sold his share to one Parmanand by a registered sale deed dated 9 December 1958. This sale according to the petitioner came to be duly recorded in the relevant revenue record. The petitioner is thereafter stated to have purchased the said plot by way of a registered sale deed executed by Paramand. On the strength of that sale deed mutation was sought by the petitioner and granted by the respondents on 25 June 1985. Pursuant to that order, the name of the petitioner came to be reflected in the revenue record. The private respondents are stated to have moved an application before the mutation authorities in 2007 alleging that the name of their father had been wrongly deleted from the concerned revenue record. They accordingly prayed for appropriate directions being made and consequential corrections effected therein. The said application was opposed by the petitioner, which also placed for the consideration of the respondent authorities the sale deed executed by Paramanand on 20 August 1959 in their favour. Reliance was also placed on the recitals appearing in that sale deed on the basis of which it was contended that the name of Allahraji over the plot in question came to be recorded on the basis of the permission granted by the Assistant Custodian. It was further asserted that the respondents were not in possession over the plot in question and consequently proceedings as initiated were liable to be rejected on this ground alone.