Allahabad High Court
Vipin Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82469-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 469 of 2024 Appellant :- Vipin Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.04.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 8195 of 2024 by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking stay of the proceedings in Case no. RST/807/2022 under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 ('the Code, 2006') has been rejected.
2. The writ petition was filed with the submission that mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 have revived on account of the fact that earlier entry made in favour of the appellant based on Will came to be cancelled on account of producing 'Vasiyat Nirast Patra' by Respondent no.4. However, as now, the appellant has filed a civil suit for cancellation of the 'Vasiyat Nirast Patra', the proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 be stayed.
3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that insofar as the proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 are concerned, the mutation entry by itself does not confer any right or interest in favour of the parties and they are only meant for fiscal purposes and that the rights of the parties would be determined in the pending civil suit and, therefore, there was no reason to stay the proceedings for mutation and consequently dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition inasmuch as the document relied on by Respondent no.4 is under challenge in the civil suit and till the disposal of the civil suit, the proceedings should have been stayed by the learned Single Judge. Reliance has been placed on Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) through Legal Representative v. Arthur Import and Export Company and others : (2019) 3 SCC 191.
5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.
6. Filing of the writ petition seeking stay of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Code, 2006 by itself was misconceived inasmuch as merely on account of filing of suit seeking cancellation of a document is not a reason enough for any Court to stay the pending proceedings, unless an injunction with regard to the document in question has been obtained from the competent court where the suit is pending.
7. Further the determination made by the learned Single Judge based on the fundamental principle pertaining to the value of the mutation entries cannot be disputed, in fact, the judgment cited by counsel for the appellant also only reiterates the said proposition of law.
8. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
nd/N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)