Chandan Pandey and others v. Shanti Devi and others)

4. Brief facts of the Case are that plot in dispute as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition were recorded in the name of Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey husband of Smt. Shanti Devi resident of Village-Hatiya, Pargana-Shivpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Varanasi. In case No.118 of 1984 a mutation order dated

20.03.1984 was alleged to be passed. Smt. Shanti Devi filed a restoration application against the mutation order dated

20.03.1984. Smt. Shanti Devi applied for mutation of her name in the place of her deceased husband Sri Radhey Shaym Pandey as Co-tenure holder. The aforementioned case was registered as case No.1654 of 2022. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 03.02.2023 directed to record the name of Smt. Shanti Devi over the share of her husband late Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 challenged the order dated 03.02.2023 by way of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was registered as Case No. REV/627/2023 (Computerized Case No.AL2023147000627). During pendency of the revision, Shanti Devi expired. In respect to deceased Shanti Devi one application has filed on behalf of revisionist and one application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of registered will deed dated

07.05.2021. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.12.2024 disposed of the revision directing that name of respondent nos.4 and 5 be recorded in the Khatauni over the share of Shanti Devi and direction was issued that petitioner Arun Kumar Mishra can avail proper remedy on the basis of the registered will deed executed in his favour before competent court. Petitioner filed a mutation Case under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for recording his name on the basis of registered will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in his favour. The aforementioned mutation case was abated by Naib Tehsildar vide order dated

06.09.2024 on the ground of pendency of Revision No.627 of

2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 06.09.2024 by way of Revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been registered as Case No.REV/5313/2024 computerized Case No.AL20241470005313 which is still pending for disposal before Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj. Hence this writ petiton for the following relief: "(i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Prayagraj in Revision No.627 of 2023, computerized case No.AL2023147000627 (Chandan Pandey and others Vs. Shanti Devi and others) (Annexure No.1 to this Writ petition)."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was illegaly entertained and decided under the impugned order. He further submitted that during pendency of the aforementioned revision an application was filed on behalf of petitioner that revision filed on behalf of the petitioner should be clubbed and heard together along with the revision filed by respondent nos.4 and 5 but the revision filed by petitioner has not been heard along with revision filed by respondent No.4 & 5. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner without examining the issues involved in the revision. He further submitted that mutation application filed by the petitioner on the basis of registered will deed executed by Shanti Devi has been abated in arbitrary manner, hence revision No.5313 of 2024 (computerized Case No.AL20241470005313) against the order of abatement is pending before Board of Revenue, as such the interest of justice requires that both the revisions should be heard together. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and matter should be remitted back before Board of Revenue to decide the revision No.627 of 2023 along with pending revision No.5313 of 2024 computerized Case No.AL20241470005313.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that writ petiton against the order passed in the mutation proceeding is not maintainable. She further submitted that revisional court has decided the revision without making any interference with the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. She further submitted that revisional Court has also mentioned that petitioner can avail proper remedy on the basis of the will deed executed in his favour which is proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the proceeding under Section 34/35 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006. She further submitted that question relating to substitution/ impleadment of legal heirs of Shanti Devi has been considered under the impugned order, as such no interference is required against impugned order.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect to the mutation proceeding, an order was passed by Naib Tehsildar for recording the name of Shanti Devi vide order dated 03.02.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision No.627 of 2023 has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the order dated

03.02.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that during pendency of the revisions Shanti Devi expired and Board of Revenue has decided the revision under the impugned order directing the petitioner to avail remedy before competent court on the basis of registered will deed and respondent nos. 4 and 5 were ordered to be recorded in the khatani over the share of Shanti Devi. There is also no dispute about the fact that revison filed by petitioner against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Naib Tehsildar abating the mutation proceeding initiated by petitioner to record his name in the place of Smt. Shanti Devi on the basis of the registered will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi is still pending before Before of Revenue.

9. Since the dispute involved in the revision filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar dated 03.02.2023 and the dispute involved in the revision filed by petitioner against the order of abatement of mutation proceeding dated 06.09.2024 in respect to the petitioner's claim on the basis of will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of the petitioner are same as such both the revisions were to be clubbed and heard together, but under the impugned order only one revision has been decided which is not correct exercise of jurisdiction by Board of Revenue.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, impugned revisional order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and matter is remitted back before respondent No.2 to register the revision No.627 of 2023 (computerized Case No.AL2023147000627) on its original number and decide the same afresh along with revision No. REV/5313/2024 (computerized Case No.AL20241470005313) after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Respondent No.2/ Board of Revenue is also directed to consider the question relating to maintainability of both the revisions in the light of the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue code,

2006. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Brief facts of the Case are that plot in dispute as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition were recorded in the name of Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey husband of Smt. Shanti Devi resident of Village-Hatiya, Pargana-Shivpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District- Varanasi. In case No.118 of 1984 a mutation order dated

20.03.1984 was alleged to be passed. Smt. Shanti Devi filed a restoration application against the mutation order dated

20.03.1984. Smt. Shanti Devi applied for mutation of her name in the place of her deceased husband Sri Radhey Shaym Pandey as Co-tenure holder. The aforementioned case was registered as case No.1654 of 2022. Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 03.02.2023 directed to record the name of Smt. Shanti Devi over the share of her husband late Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 challenged the order dated 03.02.2023 by way of revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was registered as Case No. REV/627/2023 (Computerized Case No.AL2023147000627). During pendency of the revision, Shanti Devi expired. In respect to deceased Shanti Devi one application has filed on behalf of revisionist and one application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of registered will deed dated

07.05.2021. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.12.2024 disposed of the revision directing that name of respondent nos.4 and 5 be recorded in the Khatauni over the share of Shanti Devi and direction was issued that petitioner Arun Kumar Mishra can avail proper remedy on the basis of the registered will deed executed in his favour before competent court. Petitioner filed a mutation Case under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for recording his name on the basis of registered will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in his favour. The aforementioned mutation case was abated by Naib Tehsildar vide order dated

06.09.2024 on the ground of pendency of Revision No.627 of

2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 06.09.2024 by way of Revision under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been registered as Case No.REV/5313/2024 computerized Case No.AL20241470005313 which is still pending for disposal before Board of Revenue U.P. at Prayagraj. Hence this writ petiton for the following relief: "(i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Prayagraj in Revision No.627 of 2023, computerized case No.AL2023147000627 (Chandan Pandey and others Vs. Shanti Devi and others) (Annexure No.1 to this Writ petition)."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revision filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was illegaly entertained and decided under the impugned order. He further submitted that during pendency of the aforementioned revision an application was filed on behalf of petitioner that revision filed on behalf of the petitioner should be clubbed and heard together along with the revision filed by respondent nos.4 and 5 but the revision filed by petitioner has not been heard along with revision filed by respondent No.4 & 5. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner without examining the issues involved in the revision. He further submitted that mutation application filed by the petitioner on the basis of registered will deed executed by Shanti Devi has been abated in arbitrary manner, hence revision No.5313 of 2024 (computerized Case No.AL20241470005313) against the order of abatement is pending before Board of Revenue, as such the interest of justice requires that both the revisions should be heard together. He submitted that impugned order should be set aside and matter should be remitted back before Board of Revenue to decide the revision No.627 of 2023 along with pending revision No.5313 of 2024 computerized Case No.AL20241470005313.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that writ petiton against the order passed in the mutation proceeding is not maintainable. She further submitted that revisional court has decided the revision without making any interference with the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, as such there is no illegality in the impugned order. She further submitted that revisional Court has also mentioned that petitioner can avail proper remedy on the basis of the will deed executed in his favour which is proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the proceeding under Section 34/35 of U.P Revenue Code, 2006. She further submitted that question relating to substitution/ impleadment of legal heirs of Shanti Devi has been considered under the impugned order, as such no interference is required against impugned order.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect to the mutation proceeding, an order was passed by Naib Tehsildar for recording the name of Shanti Devi vide order dated 03.02.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision No.627 of 2023 has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the order dated

03.02.2023. There is also no dispute about the fact that during pendency of the revisions Shanti Devi expired and Board of Revenue has decided the revision under the impugned order directing the petitioner to avail remedy before competent court on the basis of registered will deed and respondent nos. 4 and 5 were ordered to be recorded in the khatani over the share of Shanti Devi. There is also no dispute about the fact that revison filed by petitioner against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by Naib Tehsildar abating the mutation proceeding initiated by petitioner to record his name in the place of Smt. Shanti Devi on the basis of the registered will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi is still pending before Before of Revenue.

9. Since the dispute involved in the revision filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar dated 03.02.2023 and the dispute involved in the revision filed by petitioner against the order of abatement of mutation proceeding dated 06.09.2024 in respect to the petitioner's claim on the basis of will deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of the petitioner are same as such both the revisions were to be clubbed and heard together, but under the impugned order only one revision has been decided which is not correct exercise of jurisdiction by Board of Revenue.

10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, impugned revisional order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and matter is remitted back before respondent No.2 to register the revision No.627 of 2023 (computerized Case No.AL2023147000627) on its original number and decide the same afresh along with revision No. REV/5313/2024 (computerized Case No.AL20241470005313) after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. Respondent No.2/ Board of Revenue is also directed to consider the question relating to maintainability of both the revisions in the light of the provisions contained under the U.P. Revenue code,

2006. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 PS* PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad