Allahabad High Court
Vipin Kumar Pandey vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 18 April, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:69165 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8195 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State Respondents.
Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed the notice upon the private Respondent No. 4 is being dispensed with.
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus staying the further proceedings of Case No. RST/807/2022 (Computer Case No. T202207190100807) (Vipin Pandey Vs. Dabu Bhai) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Karvi, District Chitrakoot, till decision of Original Suit No. 336/2023 (Vipin Kumar Pandey Vs. Tribhuwan Nath) pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chitrakoot.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that property contained in Khata Nos. 88 and 89 situate in Village Kotaunha and Khata No. 42 situate in Village Bhawanipur Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot was exclusively owned by one Dabu Bhai Pandey Son of Bulli Ram Pandey, who happened to be the grandfather of the petitioner. The said Dabu Bhai Pandey executed a registered will dated 22.08.2017 bequeathing the properties contained in the aforesaid khatas in favour of the petitioner. The grandfather of the petitioner expired on 01.10.2021 whereafter the petitioner filed a Mutation Case No. 807 of 2022 (Vipin Pandey Vs. Dabu Bhai) under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue code. The Naib Tehsildar, Karvi passed an order dated 18.04.2022 mutating the name of the petitioner over the aforementioned Khatas Nos. 88 and 89 of Village Kotaunha and Khata No. 42 of Village Bhawanipur, Tehsil Karvi, District Chitrakoot.
The Respondent No.4 filed an Application dated 25.05.2022 under Section 209 (h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 praying for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2022 alleging that the registered will was a forged document. Reliance was placed upon a document titled as 'Vasiyat Nirast Patra' dated 15.05.2020 allegedly signed by Dabu Bhai and witnessed by one Ram Kesh Pandey. The Naib Tehsildar, Respondent No.3 recalled his earlier order dated 18.04.2022 and restored the Mutation Case to its original number and required the parties to lead their evidences.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit being Original Suit No. 336 of 2023 (Vipin Kumar Vs. Tribhuwan Nath) which is pending and time to file written statement has been granted to the Respondent No. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a registered will executed by Dabu Bhai. The order has been recalled on the allegation that the will is forged on the strength of a document titled as 'Virasat Nirast Patra'. The genuineness of the said document is under question in a Civil Suit being Original Suit No. 336 of 2023. Till such decision in the Civil Suit the proceedings in the Mutation Case under Section 34 pending before the Respondent No. 3 is liable to be stayed.
Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the respondents submits that the prayer made by the petitioner for staying the proceedings of the Mutation Case during the pendency of the Civil Suit is misconceived and cannot be granted on the ground that mutation entries in the revenue records do not create or extinguish the title over the land nor has it any presumptive value on title.
Heaving heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the rival submission this Court finds substance in the submission of Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. It is settled proposition of law that mutation entry does not confer any right or interest in favour of the person and it is only for the fiscal purpose. In such view of the matter the mutation proceedings cannot be stalled on the ground that the Civil Suit between the parties is pending. The outcome of the Civil Suit would ultimately govern the mutation order.
Consequently, the Courts finds no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2024 pks