Allahabad High Court
SMT MAYA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 19 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR
Holding
The earlier mutation order in favor of the respondents must be set aside before any fresh mutation can be made on the basis of the 2007 compromise decree.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt Maya Devi, claimed ownership of a land parcel based on a 1976 sale deed from Champa, which was later cancelled by a 1978 decree. Champa subsequently sold the same land to the contesting respondents in 1990 during the pendency of an appeal, and a 2007 compromise judgment dismissed the original cancellation suit. The petitioner obtained a mutation order in her favor in 2019, which was challenged by the respondents, leading to a revision that remanded the matter to the Naib Tahsildar in 2021. The Board of Revenue upheld the remand, holding that the petitioner still had a remedy before the Tahsildar and that no merits had been decided. The High Court observed that the 2005 mutation in favor of the respondents must be set aside before any fresh mutation based on the 2007 decree can be made, and therefore did not interfere with the lower orders, directing the Tahsildar to decide the pending proceedings expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the mutation order dated 13.04.2005 in favor of the respondents should be set aside before a fresh mutation can be effected on the basis of the 31.08.2007 compromise decree.
- Whether the Board of Revenue was correct in upholding the Additional Commissioner’s remand order without deciding the merits.
- Whether the petition challenging the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner is maintainable.
Subjects
- property mutation
- sale deed
- compromise decree
- revision
- Board of Revenue
- Naib Tahsildar
- Uttar Pradesh land records
- court order remand
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 5064 of 2025
Smt Maya Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 19 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sukesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shivanand Mishra
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Shivanand Mishra,
learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
property in question belongs to one Champa, who executed a sale deed
dated 11.06.1976 in favour of petitioner. After execution of aforesaid sale
deed, Champa filed a suit for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed, which
was decreed by the judgment dated 29.08.1978. Subsequently, she
executed sale deed dated 27.08.1990 of the property in question in favour
of contesting respondents during pendency of the second appeal arising
out of judgment and decree dated 29.08.1978. On the basis of
compromise having been entered between the petitioner and Champa, a
decree was passed on 31.08.2007, dismissing the original suit filed for
cancellation of sale deed dated 11.06.1976. On the basis of aforesaid
compromise judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, the petitioner moved
an application for getting her name recorded over the property in
question, which was allowed by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated
21.08.2019. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the contesting respondents
filed revision before the Commissioner of the Division, which was
allowed by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur
Division, Kanpur, dated 12.01.2021. The petitioner challenged the order
dated 12.01.2021 in revision before the Board of Revenue, the respondent
no.2, which has been dismissed by the order dated 04.11.2025. The
present petition has been filed challenging the orders of respondent nos.2
WRIB No. 5064 of 2025
2
and 3 dated 04.11.2025 and 12.01.2021, respectively.
3. Perusal of order dated 12.01.2021 shows that it is an order of remand
directing the Naib Tahsildar to decide the issue again after hearing
contesting respondents, who were recorded over the property in question
being subsequent tranferees. The respondent no.3 while allowing the
revision of the contesting respondents has observed that against the order
dated 13.04.2005, by which their names were recorded over the land in
question, a restoration application filed by the petitioner was already
pending, therefore, fresh case could not have been registered on the basis
of judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007. The Board of Revenue has
upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the
petitioner already has a remedy to argue her case before Naib Tahsildar as
nothing has been decided on merits by the Additional Commissioner and
the entire controversy is still open for consideration.
4. Having perused the aforesaid order, I find that the order of mutation
dated 13.04.2005, passed on the application of the contesting respondents,
pursuant to sale deed dated 27.08.1990, was required to be set aside
before any fresh order of mutation is passed on the basis of judgment and
decree dated 31.08.2007. In such circumstances, no interference is
required with the orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3, under
challenge, at this stage.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with
direction to the respondent no.4 - Naib Tahsildar, Nagar, District Etawah
to decide the pending proceedings in pursuance of the order of Additional
Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dated 12.01.2021,
expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order. Learned counsels for the
parties undertake that the parties shall cooperate with the hearing of
proceedings pending before the concerned Naib Tahsildar.
(Arun Kumar,J.)
April 20, 2026
Ashok Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…