Rajeev Ghai vs Shailendra Ghai & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Dehradun in Revision No. 90/2017-18.

It transpires that petitioner filed two applications for mutation in respect of his family property, which were registered as Mutation Case No. 30 of 3611 and Mutation Case No. 30 of 3612 of 2008-09. The said applications were based on alleged family settlement. Tehsildar, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar allowed the said mutation applications of the petitioner on the strength of no objection certificate, alleged to have been issued by Mr. Shailendra Ghai (respondent No. 1 herein). Respondent No. 1 moved an application for recall of the order passed by Tehsildar under Section 201 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, which was rejected on the ground that the MOU regarding the property in question is subject matter of a proceeding pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in which order of status quo is also passed, therefore, no order can be passed on the recall application.

Mr. Shailendra Ghai (respondent No. 1) filed two appeals before the Assistant Collector First Class, Kashipur, which are numbered as Appeal No. 52/3 and Appeal No. 52/4 of 2016-17. During pendency of these appeals, respondent No.1 made a complaint to the Board of Revenue against the Tehsildar making serious allegations. Learned Board of Revenue invoked its power available under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act and treated the complaint as revision and summoned record of the appeals filed by respondent no. 1 from the Appellate Court. Upon receipt of the record, the same was registered as Revision No. 90 of 2017-18, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2018, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the Board of Revenue has remanded the matter back to Tehsildar for decision afresh after hearing all parties concerned. Scope of interference with a remand order is limited, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose Vs Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 SC 707 and Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) By Lrs vs Narvedshwar Mishra (Dead) By Lrs. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 422.

Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 enables the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any case decided or proceeding held by any Revenue Court subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed or proceeding held. Although, respondent no.1 had filed two appeals before Assistant Collector First Class against the order passed by Tehsildar, however, in view of the nature of allegations made against Tehsildar in the complaint filed by respondent no.1, Board of Revenue summoned the record of the appeal and treated them as Revision. Board of Revenue is the highest Revenue Court in the State, which invoked its powers under Section 219 of the Act for summoning record of the appeals and for deciding them.

I find that no serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, which may warrant interference with the order passed by Board of Revenue in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Even otherwise also, it is common knowledge that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and disputed question of title cannot be decided therein. Mutation of name in the revenue records is done for fiscal purpose i.e. collection of land revenue and it is not decisive of right, title or interest in property which is under the domain of regular court as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Ravi Vs B. Chinna Narasimha & others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 342.

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the order passed by Board of Revenue. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that Tehsildar shall decide the mutation applications on merit, without being influenced by order passed by Board of Revenue.