Mohit Bhargav vs Board of Revenue, Up., Lucknow and Others

B.B. Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri D.C. Mukherjee from the side of petitioner and Sri R.B.S. Rathore from the side of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5.

Power has been filed only on behalf of opposite party No .2 but the counsel for the opposite party has submitted that opposite party No.3 to 5 are the brothers of opposite party No.2 and he is representing all the opposite parties in the writ petition.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the mutation proceedings when the matter was brought in the Board of Revenue then the Board of Revenue passed the impugned order dated 28.2.2006 whereby the proceedings on mutation were kept in abeyance till disposal of the civil suit in respect of cancellation of the sale deed alleged to be executed by opposite party No.6 in favour of father of opposite party Nos.2 to 5.

It is made clear that opposite party No.6 has given statement during the mutation proceedings denying execution of the sale deed in favour of father of opposite party Nos.2 to 5 and he along with petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mutation proceedings can not be kept in abeyance as has been held by the Board of Revenue in his order dated 28.2.2006 and the mutation proceedings should be disposed of finally and, therefore, the order passed by Board of Revenue is absolutely incorrect. This aspect of the law has been conceded by the counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 5.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue reported in R.D. 1992 page 299, Irfan Ali v. Rafeeq, wherein it has been held that a Court under Land Revenue Act should not stay and should immediately and decisively decide the mutation application subject to modification, correction or regulation by the result of a regular suit which may take its own longer time.

In that view of the matter the writ petition has some force and it deserves to be allowed.

Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure No.1) dated 28.2.2006 passed by Board of Revenue is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to Board of Revenue to dispose of the Revision No.155/2002 on merits afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Since the matter is pending for last so many years, therefore, the Board of Revenue is directed to dispose of this revision at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Board of Revenue.

Till then parties shall maintain status quo over the disputed land.

(Petition allowed)