Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The facts of the case, which can be deduced from the pleadings available on record, are that the dispute relates to land comprised in khasra plot nos.32 and 185 having an area of 1.063 and 1.012 hectares respectively of khata no.68 of khatauni pertaining to 1414 F to 1419 F years, situate in village-Thariya, Pargana-Pachhoha, Tehsil-Sawaizpur, Dstrict-Hardoi. Undisputed recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute was one Mataru, son of Devideen. On his death, several applications for mutation were moved under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. One such application for mutation was moved by Balveer Singh and Ranveer Singh, who are respondent nos.7 and 8 herein.

The Lekhapal also submitted a report in relation to transfer of land and simultaneously the Village Pradhan of the village concerned also moved an application on behalf of Gaon Sabha. Another set of application was moved for mutation by one Shishpal, son of Jatadhari. Raghuveer Singh, son of Basant Singh also filed objection claiming mutation of his name on the basis of succession. According to Raghuveer Singh, he is the successor of the land in question being father's father's, son's son of the deceased tenure holder, Mataru. He denied the claim of the respondent nos.7 and 8 who had claimed mutation of their names on the basis of succession stating that they are the sister's sons of the deceased tenure holder. The Land Management Committee had filed objection stating therein that since the recorded tenure holder Mataru had died without leaving any heir behind him and that neither Raghuveer Singh, nor the respondent nos.7 and 8 are the successors of the deceased tenure holder, as such the land be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. The Gaon Sabha also stated in its objection that neither the respondent nos.7 and 8, nor Shish Pal, Chhote Singh and Raghuveer Singh are in possession over the land in question.

On issuance of proclamation, parties to the proceedings were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The Tehsildar, however, on the basis of the evaluation of evidence available on record, considered the entire matter and found in his order dated 15.04.2011 that none of the applicants/objectors were entitled to mutation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the land in question for the reason that all of them had failed to establish their respective cases. The claim put forth by the respondent nos.7 and 8 for mutation of their names was also rejected. Accordingly, the Tehsildar in his order dated 15.04.2011 has observed that the deceased tenure holder Mataru had died intestate and for further action, he referred the matter/file to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sawaizpur, district-Hardoi.

At this juncture itself, it appears appropriate to observe that the Tehsildar's order dated 15.04.2011 may not be termed as a report for the reason that the same is, in fact, an order passed by him while considering the applications/objections in the proceedings drawn under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act for mutation. The proceedings under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act indisputably are judicial proceedings wherein respective claims of the applicants/objectors are decided for mutation to be effected in the revenue records in case the possession is found to have been transferred by the recorded tenure holder by some recognized legal mode or the land in question otherwise devolves on death of the recorded tenure holder upon the person/persons claiming mutation. The Tehsildar while rejecting the claims of all the parties for mutation of their names in the revenue records vide his order dated 15.04.2011 had only referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer for vesting the land in question in Gaon Sabha. It is worthy to be noticed that the Tehsildar while passing the order dated 15.04.2011 has not stated therein that he is referring the matter under section 167 of the Act.