High CourtsSingle Bench

Sushil Devi vs Tehsildar Alapur, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 July 2015 · Citation: (2015) 6 AWC 5757

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 4151 of 2015
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 364 words

Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard. Petitioner, who is said to be wife of late Rama Shankar Singh has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to Tehsildar to decide the Case No. 486; Rinku v. Rama Shankar Singh within a period of one month.

2.

During the course of arguments, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any application for substituting the name of Rama Shankar Singh after his death has been filed or not to which he replied that in mutation proceedings there is no requirement of making any substitution. He further stated that it is the general practice of impleading the dead persons as party in mutation proceedings.

3.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the court is not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner''s counsel. I am unable to understand as to why dead persons are impleaded as opposite parties in the mutation proceedings.

4.

There is no dispute to the fact that the mutation proceedings have started after the death of Rama Shankar Singh. Therefore, there was no occasion to implead him as one of the respondents in the said application. A deceased (dead person) cannot be made as party in any proceedings or case.

5.

My aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court rendered in Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and Others, , wherein the court held that in mutation applications next of kins of deceased should be impleaded as parties as is done in probate proceedings, particularly when mutation is sought on the basis of Will or otherwise. By the aforesaid decision Naib Tehsildars were also directed to stop such practice but I am unable to understand as to why concerned authorities are not following the direction and has yet not stopped such practice.

6.

For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any good ground to issue direction as sought for by the petitioner.

7.

The writ petition stands dismissed. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow, for information and issuing necessary direction to the officers/officials concerned in this regard.