Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.

3. It appears that petitioners filed 2 suits under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') for declaration that they were co-tenure holders in the land tn dispute, their share being 1/6 each. It was pleaded that the land in dispute was ancestral seer and Khudkasht land in the hands of Devi Singh, petitioners had been born before abolition of Zamindari in the State. Consequently. being the members of Joint Hindu Family, they acquired rights in the land in dispute by birth. The validity of the sale deed dated 15.4.1982 executed by Devi Singh in favour of respondent No. 3, was also challenged. Suits were contested by respondent No. 3 and were ultimately dismissed by the trial court by judgment and decrees dated 24.1.'1986. Challenging the validity of the said decrees, petitioners filed appeals before the Commissioner. The said appeals were also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondent No. 1, by his judgment and decrees dated 27.6.1986. Thereafter, petitioners filed two second appeals before the Board of Revenue which also met the same fate and were dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 8.7.1994 and the decrees passed by the trial court was restored. Thereafter the petitioners earlier approached this Court and filed two writ petitions, i.e.. Writ Petition No. 29148 of 1994 and 29149 of 1994. The said writ petitions were also dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 14.9.1994. This Court while dealing with the case on merits observed as under :

5. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision under Section 219 of U. P. Land Revenue Act before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 affirmed the order passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners by his judgment dated 9.2.1999, hence the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that judgments and orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are wholly illegal and they are liable to be set aside. It was urged that in view of the observations made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 14.9.1994, referred to above, it was not open to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to place reliance upon the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by them under Section 229B of the Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the following decisions :

1. Baliram Atmaram Kelapure v. Smt. Indirabai and others, JT 1996 (5) SC 18.
2. Sri Venkateswara Rice. Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1972 SC 51.
3. Syed Ashfaq Husain and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others, 1970 ALJ 1167.
4. Ram Kalap v. Banshi Dhar and others, AIR 1958 All 573.

7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the validity of the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and submitted that the said orders were passed in the proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act which are summary in nature. The orders passed in the said proceedings are subject to the decision by a competent court on the regular side. The petitioners, if they feel aggrieved by the said orders, could approach the court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of their rights, if any. in the land in dispute. The writ petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is legally not maintainable. It was also urged that the judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 229B have become final and the controversy resolved in the said suit could not be reopened in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act inasmuch as the authorities below were bound by the said decrees. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was, therefore, legally not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed In limine.

"By now, it is well-settled that where the dispute is in mutation proceedings which do not adjudicate upon rights or title of the parties, this Court need not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such matters, person aggrieved shall have rider to seek remedy in the appropriate court."

10. In view of the Settled Law regarding the nature and status of proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the present petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of a suit for declaration of rights in the land in dispute. The Courts below have passed orders in favour of contesting respondent No. 3 on the basis of a Will executed by Shri Devi Singh in her favour as prima facie the execution and validity of Will was proved. The Assistant Collector while dealing with the validity of Will referred to the written statement filed by late Devi Singh in the suit filed under Section 229B of the Act by the petitioners. It has been stated that late Devi Stngh himself during his lifetime admitted the execution of Will in favour of respondent No. 3. The said written statements (Paper Nos. A-18/1 to A-18/4) form part of the record. Devi Singh himself having admitted the execution of the Will voluntarily and with free Will, the respondent No. 3, therefore, committed no mistake in relying upon the admission of the deceased and in directing the name of respondent No. 3 to be mutated in place of Devi Singh. 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order.