Anita Devi vs Additional Commissioner Meerut Division

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri U.K. Saxena for the petitioner.

The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 1.9.2014 allowing the revision filed by Pankaj Sharma and others partly and the remanding the case to Tehsildar for deciding the genuineness of two sale deeds as well as issue relating to possession over the transferred property and pas a fresh order of mutation.

Admittedly, the property in dispute was belonging to Chokha Singh father of the petitioner. It is stated that Chokha Singh entered into an agreement to sell on 6.7.2010 for transferring the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter Chokha Singh executed a sale deed dated 26.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, Chokha Singh executed another sale deed dated 1.11.2010 of the part of the land in dispute in favour of Pankaj Sharma and others. On the basis of sale deed dated 26.11.2010 the petitioner filed a mutation case (registered as Case No. 217) which has been allowed by the Tehsildar by order dated 8.3.2011 and name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated over the land in dispute. In the meantime, thereafter Pankaj Sharma and others filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of sale deed dated 1.11.2010 and Naib Tehsildar by order dated 14.10.2011 directed for recording of their names over the land transferred to them by the sale deed dated 01.11.2010. The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.10.2011 in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 28.11.2011 and the Sub Divisional Officer found that as Chokha Singh has already entered into an agreement to sell of the same land on 6.7.2010 as such in pursuance of the agreement executed sale deed dated 26.11.2010 which will prevail over the sale deed dated 01.11.2010. On this ground the appeal was allowed and order dated 14.10.2011 was set aside. Pankaj Sharma and others filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been partly allowed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 1.9.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that Chokha Singh had already executed agreement to sell on 6.7.2010 and in pursuance of that agreement he executed sale deed dated 26.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner as such he had no right in the meantime to sell part of the property by sale deed dated 01.11.2010. The petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 01.11.2010 before the civil court, which is pending. In the circumstances, the Additional Commissioner has illegally remanded the matter to Tehsildar to decide the genuineness of the sale deed dated 01.11.2010. He submits that the matter is pending before the civil court which is the only competent authority to examine the genuineness of the sale deed dated 01.11.2010 and Tehsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of the sale deed. In such circumstances at the most proceeding for mutation can be postponed till the disposal of civil suit.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner.

It has been held that mutation proceeding is an independent proceeding and has been provided for the purpose of realisation of land revenue. In such circumstances the provision of Section 10 C.P.C. will not apply and hearing in mutation proceeding is not liable to be postponed till disposal of the suit pending in the civil court. It has been consistently held that mutation proceeding under U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceeding and judgment in this proceeding does not operate as res judicata. In any case Tehsildar passes any order for the purpose of mutation then it will not affect the right of the parties in civil court nor it can be relied as evidence in the civil suit.

Since the statutory duty has been cast upon Tehsildar for deciding mutation proceeding in accordance with law for the purpose of realisation of land revenue, he can examine the validity of the claim set up by any of the parties. In such circumstances the remand order is not illegal. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.