Dinesh Chandra Bhagat & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the unofficial respondents.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3282 of 2017 dated 26. 07.2018.

Based on a document, allegedly an order passed by the revenue authorities on 16.11.1981, certain mutations were effected in the revenue records, as a result of which the name of the predecessor of the unofficial respondents was reflected as a co-sharer of the subject land. The petitioners' grievance is that, as such a document is non-existent, no mutation could have been effected in the revenue records on the basis of such a non-existent order.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned Counsel for the appellants, would contend that, since the very entry in the revenue records in the year 2002 based on such document dated 16.11.1981 is vitiated by fraud and was made on the basis of a fabricated document, the mutation is a nullity, and necessitates being set aside. Learned Counsel would submit that all that the petitioners now seek, by way of present writ petition, is for a direction to the authorities, who have already initiated an enquiry, to complete the said enquiry within a specified time frame, and to determine whether or not the document dated 16.11.1981 is genuine or fabricated or non-existent.

Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition (M/S) No.983 of 2016, raising the very same contention that the order dated 16.11.1981 is non-existent, and the name of Sri Lokmani Bhagat (father of respondent nos.4 to 7) was mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the said order. They sought the relief of a fresh enquiry to be made to confirm the veracity of the order dated 16.11.1981. Writ Petition (M/S) No.983 of 2016 was disposed of by order dated 5.9.2016, recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that a representation had been moved to the District Collector, Nainital seeking a fair and impartial enquiry, and directing the District Collector, Nainital to take a decision and pass suitable orders, thereupon, according to law.

Contending that, pursuant to order dated 5.9.2016, the authorities have initiated an enquiry, and the said enquiry should be directed to be disposed of within a specified time frame, the petitioners have again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioners, was disposed of without any effective order, as the petitioners' representation was pending before the authorities; the present writ petition was filed seeking a change in the long standing revenue records which cannot be done in the writ petition; long standing revenue records cannot be altered, except by orders of the competent court in civil or revenue proceedings (as the case may be); and the petitioners have an effective remedy to initiate civil proceedings or revenue proceedings before the appropriate authorities.

In effect, the learned Single Judge has relegated the petitioners to avail the remedy of approaching the competent civil court or the revenue court for redressal of their grievance.

Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned Counsel for the appellants, would submit that, for the reliefs, sought for in the present petition i.e. to complete the enquiry within a specified time frame, the petitioners can neither approach the civil court nor the revenue court; it is only in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that this Court can direct the authorities to cause an enquiry, and to complete it within a specified time frame; and the learned Single Judge has erred in relegating the petitioners to the remedy of filing a civil suit, instead of directing the authorities concerned to complete the enquiry, into the non-existing document dated 16.11.1981, within a specified time frame.

The petitioners seeks an enquiry into the veracity of the proceedings dated 16.11.1981 on the basis of which the name of father of the unofficial respondents was mutated in the revenue records. They are aggrieved by such a mutation, as they claim a right over the said property.

As the mutation entry in the revenue records is faulted on the ground that it is based on a non-existing document dated 16.11.1981, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the civil court or the revenue court, seeking correction of the mutation entries in the revenue records on the ground that it is based on a non-existent or a fabricated document dated 16.11.1981, in which event, the civil court or the revenue court can itself examine whether or not such a document dated

11.1981, based on which the name of the father of the unofficial respondents was mutated, exists. It is always open to the petitioners, in case an enquiry is completed by then, to rely on such an enquiry report before the competent civil court, and to seek correction of the mutation entries in the revenue records.

In an intra-court appeal, interference is justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. The learned Single Judge has not committed any such error in relegating the petitioners to the alternative remedy of approaching the competent civil courts and revenue courts. We see no reason, in such circumstances, to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.