Allahabad High Court
Lalit Saroj vs Additional Commissioner, ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31683 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5015 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalit Saroj Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Administration, Mandal, Ayodhya, District Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the records.
2) In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.
3) The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 21/04/2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner Administration, Mandal Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya, in Case No. 2939/2024, computerised case No. C202404000002939, 'Lalit Saroj Vs Anil Kumar & others', under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as order dated 13/03/2024, passed by the Tehsildar Sohawal, District RST/1541/2015, Ayodhya in case No. computerised case No. T20150423021541, 'Lalit Saroj Vs Chhotai & others', under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question."
4) Brief facts of the case, as indicated, are to the effect that :-
(i) The petitioner is claiming rights over half of the area over Gata No. 163/0.5060 hect. situated at Hamlet - Gopalpur, Tehsil - Sohawal, District - Faizabad (now Ayodhya), over which the respondent no.3/Anil Kumar S/o late Vijay Kumar was having rights.
(ii) Aforesaid claim is based upon the sale deed registered on 08.05.2016 in the Office of Registrar, Sohawal, Ayodhya.
(iii) Sale deed aforesaid was executed by one Chhotai, grandfather of the respondent no.3.
(iv) By the aforesaid sale deed, entire area i.e. 0.5060 hect. of Gata No. 163 was sold.
(v) At the time of execution/registration of sale deed, the respondent no. 3 was about fifteen years old and, mother and father of the respondent no. 3 were expired in the year 2002 itself.
(vi) The Chhotai, who executed the sale deed on 08.05.2016, is grandfather of the respondent no.3.
(vii) On coming to know about the aforesaid fact related to execution/registration of sale deed, immediately, the respondent no.3 filed a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.05.2016 on 02.07.2016 impleading Chhotari, as defendant no.1, and Lalit Saroj, the petitioner, as defendant no.2, which is pending as Regular Suit No. 468 of 2016 in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
(viii) Undisputedly, the sale deed in so far as it relates to the share of the respondent no. 3, who at relevant point of time, was a minor is a voidable document and this sale deed has been impeached by filing a regular suit by the respondent no. 3 through guardian/real sister Ms. Shakuntala.
(ix) The respondent no. 3 thereafter preferred an application for recalling an order passed in mutation proceedings which was favorable to the petitioner and this application was decided (allowed) vide order dated 13.03.2024 by Tehsildar, Sohawal, District - Ayodhya (in short "Tehsildar") in Case No. RST/1541/2015, Computerized Case No. T20150423021541, under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901").
(x) The order dated 13.03.2024 passed in mutation case referred above and the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner, Administration, Mandal, Ayodhya, District Ayodhya in Case No. 2939/2024, computerised case No. C202404000002939, 'Lalit Saroj Vs Anil Kumar & others', under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") have been impeached in this petition.
5) Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings.
6) It is to be noted that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.
7) Section 40A of the Act of 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of Code of 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.
8) Mutation of a property in revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.
9) Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition i.e. the issue related to validity/genuineness of registered sale deed registered on 08.05.2016, which cannot be adjudicated in the mutation proceedings as also that the Regular Suit No. 468 of 2016 (Supra) for seeking decree of cancellation of sale deed registered on 08.05.2016 is pending consideration, I am not inclined to cause interference in the orders impugned in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the said regular suit for their rights over the property in dispute as also the mutation case, which shall be decided by the Tehsildar, most expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in the case.
10) It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.
11) With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Mohit Singh/-