Allahabad High Court
Harshendra Kumar vs State Of U P And 6 Others on 3 March, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7224 of 2020 Petitioner :- Harshendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheetal Verma,Suresh Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following material relief and no other:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow-respondent no.2 to hear and decide the revision no. 2329/2007-08 (computer case no. R200805730033279); Harshendra versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others filed under section 219 Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 expeditiously within the time as may be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
The petitioner claims that his father, Rajendra Kumar was recorded bhumidhar with transferable rights of land comprising plot nos.100 and 174, situate in Mauja Gambhirpur, Tehsil and District Auraiya, besides plot nos.114 and 284, situate in Mauja Dwarikapur, Tehsil and District Auraiya. Rajendra Kumar married one Smt. Nirmla Devi, respondent no.3 on 05.01.1978. The marriage between parties was disrupted by matrimonial discord, that led a decree for divorce between parties on 17.10.1988. Rajendra Kumar remarried on 01.12.1988, Smt. Kiran. The petitioner was born of the wedlock of Rajendra Kumar and Smt. Kiran on 25.01.1993. Lateron, Rajendra Kumar and Smt. Kiran fell apart, and their marriage ended with a divorce decree passed on 22.03.1999. Rajendra Kumar died on 12.06.2006, and as the petitioner would claim leaving behind him the petitioner, then a minor, as his sole heir and legal representative.
It is the petitioner's case that after the death of Rajendra Kumar, Smt. Nirmla Devi illegally and fraudulently got her name mutated over a half share of the property in dispute, whereas over the other half, she got the petitioner's name mutated, showing herself to be the petitioner's mother. It is also averred that Smt. Nirmla Devi taking advantage of her recorded name in the revenue records, executed a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2006, transferring her half share in favour of one Smt. Naresh Devi, respondent no.4. The petitioner's further case is that upon coming to know of the fraud played by Smt. Nirmla Devi, the petitioner under the guardianship of his grandmother filed two mutation cases under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, seeking mutation of his name over the land in dispute in place of Rajendra Kumar. Another two mutation cases were filed also under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act by Smt. Naresh Devi on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 16.09.2006, executed in her favour by Smt. Nirmla Devi. The four mutation cases were numbered on the file of the Naib Tehsildar, Auraiya as Case nos.422, 423, 435 and 448. The Naib Tehsildar consolidated all the four mutation cases, and as the petitioner would assert, rejected the claims filed by the petitioner and allowed the two mutation cases filed by Smt. Naresh Devi.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Revision on 15.04.2008, under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act to the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow. The Board issued notice and summoned the Lower Court records directing parties to maintain status quo. It is pointed out by the petitioner that Smt. Naresh Devi further transferred the land in dispute in favour of one Indal Singh. Indal Singh was impleaded as opposite party no.3 to the Revision. Pending Revision, Indal Singh died in the year 2017, and his sons were substituted. It is also averred that Indal Singh's sons have put in appearance through learned Counsel in the Revision and the Revision is ready for hearing.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision is pending for the past 11 years, but the same has not been disposed of. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the order sheet of the Revision from 15.09.2015 to 18.11.2019.
A perusal of the order sheet, during the aforesaid stretch of time, shows casual adjournments with no orders of moment being made. Mutation proceedings are inherently urgent matters, that require to be expeditiously disposed of, not only in the interest of parties, but also revenues of the State.
Looking to the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, no notice is being issued to the private respondents as rights of parties are not being determined on merits. Still, if the private respondents feel aggrieved, it would be open to them to make an application in the decided matter.
Learned Standing Counsel waives his right to file counter affidavit, looking to the order proposed to be made.
Under the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow is ordered to hear and decide Revision no. 2329/2007-08 (Computerized Case no. R200805730033279); Harshendra versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, within a period of six months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law after hearing all parties concerned, provided there is no legal impediment. The Board will not grant any adjournment except for the short duration of a day or two, and that also, for very justifiable reason. The time indicated shall be adhered to in all events.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above orders. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 Chandan