NAVEEN CHANDRA SETHS Vs. COMMISSIONER ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the orders dated 9.3.1999 and 5.4,1999. respectively. Annexures-1 and 1A to the writ petition, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division. Allahabad, respondent No. 1. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows :

(2.) The dispute relates to the mutation of the-names over the Nazul plot of land No. 34, George Town, Allahabad, admeasuring 1007 sq. yards. It is an admitted fact that the lease -agreement of the said plot was executed on 23.10.1914, to be effective from the retrospective date, i.e., 1.1.1910 for a period of 90 years subject to renewals after every 30 years in favour of Rai Keshri Narain Chaddha who left behind him one of his sons--Triyugi Narain Chaddha. A bungalow bearing Municipal number 34/2 (old) and new number 6A. C. Y. Chintamani Road, has come up over the said plot of land. After the death of Triyugi Narain Chaddha, lease rights were Inherited by his two sons, namely, Satyugi Narain Chaddha and Triloki Narain Chaddha. The tease was renewed in their names. Up to this stage, there is no dispute between the parlies. The present petitioners are the sons and daughter of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth who happens to be the daughter of Satyugi Narain Chaddha. Respondent No. 3, Tej Narain Chaddha and respondent No. 4 Deepak Narain Chaddha respectively are the son and grandson of Triloki Narain Chaddha. Satyugi Narain Chaddha executed a Will dated 19.4.1957 bequeathing his rights in the Nazul land in favour of Tej Narain Chaddha son of Triloki Narain Chaddha respondent No. 3 and In respect of his share in the house constructed on the Nazul land, in favour of his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi and his daughter Smt. Raj Kumari Seth who was married to Amar Chand Seth. The Will dated 19.4.1957 allegedly executed by Satyugi Narain Chaddha who died on 2.1.1962 was acted upon, inasmuch as, an application for mutation was moved by Tej Narain Chaddha on the basis of the Will of his uncle. Smt. Raj Kumari Seth endorsed 'no objection' in her own handwriting on the application for mutation moved by the respondent No. 3 Tej Narain Chaddha. A copy of the application with the endorsement of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth is Annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In pursuance of the Will dated 19.4.1957 executed by Satyugi Narain Chaddha, the name of Tej Narain Chaddha came to be mutated along with his father Triloki Narain Chaddha by order dated 20.6.1963. Similarly, the name of Raj Kumari Seth was mutated in regard to the house/bungalow built over the Nazul land. Triloki Narain Chaddha in his turn executed a Will in respect of the lease rights in favour of his grandson Deepak Narain Chaddha, son of Tej Narain Chaddha respondent No. 4 on 3.7.1983. Triloki Narain Chaddha died on 1.9.1983. Deepak Narain Chaddha, respondent No. 4 moved an application for mutation of his name on the basis of the Will dated 3.7.1983 executed in his favour by his grandfather. During the course of mutation proceedings, an objection was filed by Smt. Raj Kumari Seth on 10.12.1966. The mutation application was being dealt with by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) who rejected the objection of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth and ordered on 19.3.1997 for the mutation of the name of Deepak Narain Chaddha respondent No. 4. In this manner, the names of Tej Narain Chaddha respondent No. 3 and his son Deepak Narain Chaddha respondent No. 4 came to be mutated/recorded over the Nazul land in question.

(3.) Subsequently. Smt. Raj Kumari. Seth moved an application dated 23.4.1998 (Annexure-8 to the petition) asserting herself to be the lessee of half share in the Nazul property and prayed for mutation of her name over the same. Obviously the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed objections and informed the A.D.M. (Nazul) that the orders for mutation nave already been passed after rejecting the claim of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth and sons and since the mutation proceedings have become final, they cannot be reopened. The case of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth found favour with the Collector/District Magistrate who passed an order on 17.8.1998 rejecting the mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and directed that the name of Smt. Raj Kumari Seth be mutated. The order passed by the Collector was carried out. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate by making a representation before the Divisional Commissioner. They also filed a Writ Petition No. 36661 of 1998 which was finally disposed of on 15.1.1999 by a Division Bench of this Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows : "Admittedly, the petitioner's representation against the order dated 17.8.1998 is pending before the Commissioner, Allahabad vide Annexure-18 to the petition. This petition is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner to decide the said appeal within two months of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned. Till disposal of the representation by the Commissioner, the parties will maintain status quo." Smt. Raj Kumari Seth died on 11.2.1999. Pursuant to the above order passed by this Court, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the representation/appeal of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by passing order dated 9.3.1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and set aside the order dated 17.8.1998, passed by the District Magistrate. The present petitioners filed a review application before the Divisional Commissioner who rejected the same by order dated 5.4.1999, a copy of . which is Annexure-1A to the writ petition. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come forward before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of the Division, fnter alia, on the grounds that the order dated 20;6.1963 passed on the basis of the alleged Will dated 19.4.1957 purported to have been executed by Satyugi Narain Chaddha and the order dated 19.3.1997 passed on the strength of the Will dated 3.7.1983 executed by Triloki Narain Chaddha in favour of Deepak Narain Chaddha respondent No. 4, by the Additional District Magistrate (Nazul) are untenable in law as in view of the provisions made in the Nazul Manual, it is the Collector/District Magistrate alone with whose approval the entries in the Nazul register can be amended/changed, meaning thereby the Additional District Magistrate did not have power, authority or competence to pass the aforesaid orders ; that the Commissioner of the Division is further not authorised to set aside the order passed by the Collector, in respect of the Nazul land and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner are illegal and without jurisdiction. The pleas that the Will dated 19.4.1957 alleged to have been executed by Satyugi Narain Chaddha is forged and fictitious and that the signatures of his daughter late Smt. Raj Kumari Seth were obtained on blank papers by Tej Narain Chaddha respondent No. 3 has also been taken, besides the stand that, in any case, Satyugi Narain Chaddha was not entitled to execute the Will in favour of Tej Narain Chaddha to the extent of half share in the Nazul property as late Smt. Raj Kumari Seth had acquired a right by birth to the extent of at least one fourth share.