Annapurna Devi v. Nayab Tehsildar, Sahabganj and others). A further prayer in the nature of mandamu

Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt along with Sri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 to 4 as also Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel who has accepted the notice of the writ petition on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Land Management Committee concerned.

2. The instant writ petition questions the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, Prayagraj in Revision No. 2094 of 2023 (Annapurna Devi vs. Nayab Tehsildar, Sahabganj and others). A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over plot no. 686 area 0.0989 hectare situate at Mauza Shahabganj Patti Lihra, Tehsil Chakiya, District Chandauli in any manner has also been prayed for.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the plot in dispute i.e. plot no. 686 area 0.989 hectares situate at Muaza Shahabganj Patti Lihra, Tehsil Chakiya, District Varanasi now Chandauli was recorded in the name of his father Late Manglapati Tripathi. The said plot is alleged to have been gifted by the late father during his lifetime to the contesting respondent no. 6 herein i.e. Smt. Annapurna Devi D/o Bhauja Lal. A mutation application under Section 34 of the L.R. Act registered as Case No. 233 of 1995 was filed to get her name recorded over the said plot on the strength of the aforesaid gift dated 03.06.1995. The mutation case came to be allowed by the Nayab Tehsildar vide order dated 05.08.1995. The petitioner filed a time barred recall application on 08.10.2012 seeking condonation of delay and recall of the order dated

05.08.1995. The restoration was allowed and order dated

05.08.1995 was set aside vide order dated 29.11.2012. The mutation case after restoration was dismissed for non prosecution on the non appearance of the respondent no. 6 herein vide order dated 29.04.2013. The order dated 29.04.2013 was recalled on the application of the respondent no. 6 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the respondent no. 6 vide order dated 22.11.2016. The order dated 22.11.2016 was also recalled at the instance of the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2023 and the mutation case was restored to its original number and parties were given due opportunity to press their respective cases so that an order on merits could be passed. This order dated 23.06.2023 was again assailed by the respondent no. 6 in revision before the Board of Revenue which dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.07.2023 having been filed assailing an interlocutory order. A review was filed by the respondent no. 6 against the order dated 20.07.2023 which was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2023, the revision was restored to its original number and admitted and operation of the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 23.06.2023 was stayed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Board of Revenue allowing the review i.e. 19.09.2023 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in Writ B-No. 3746 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2024, however, the Board of Revenue was directed to conclude the pending proceedings of the revision expeditiously within a period of four weeks.

5. It is contended that the Board of Revenue has now by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 23.06.2023 of the Naib Tehsildar and allowed the mutation application in favour of the respondent no. 6 on the strength of the gift dated 03.06.1995. It is also argued that the gifted property is ancestral property and could not have been gifted by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent no. 6 The Naib Tehsildar under his order dated 05.08.1995 without examining the genuineness of the gift directed for mutation of the donee respondent no. 6 merely on the statement of the donar i.e. Late Manlapati Tripathi (father of the petitioner). A civil suit being O.S. No. 474 of 2021 questioning the gift has already been filed and is pending yet mutation has been ordered. It is also argued that the ingredients of a valid gift were not made out inasmuch as possession was never delivered to the respondent no. 6. It is thus submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue being patently illegal is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed as prayed.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 6 submit that the Board of Revenue was entirely justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the mutation order was passed after recording the statement of the donar during his lifetime. No objections were raised to the gift deed during the life time of the donar late Manglapati Tripathi. The Board of Revenue has recorded adequate reasons for allowing the revision and no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the records. Having gone through the records as also the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, I find that the Board of Revenue has recorded adequate reasons for arriving at the conclusion so arrived at which do not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition arises out of summary proceedings which are not binding on the rights of the parties. The mutation has been ordered on the basis of the gift which has duly been acknowledged by the donar. The gift is already questioned in O.S. No. 474 of 2021 which is pending. There is no order operating in the suit preventing the mutation order. The mutation order shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings of the civil suit pending between the parties. No jurisdictional error or any illegality can be said to have been committed by the Board of Revenue in passing the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

8. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt along with Sri Satyendra Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 to 4 as also Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel who has accepted the notice of the writ petition on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Land Management Committee concerned.

2. The instant writ petition questions the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, Prayagraj in Revision No. 2094 of 2023 (Annapurna Devi vs. Nayab Tehsildar, Sahabganj and others). A further prayer in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over plot no. 686 area 0.0989 hectare situate at Mauza Shahabganj Patti Lihra, Tehsil Chakiya, District Chandauli in any manner has also been prayed for.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the plot in dispute i.e. plot no. 686 area 0.989 hectares situate at Muaza Shahabganj Patti Lihra, Tehsil Chakiya, District Varanasi now Chandauli was recorded in the name of his father Late Manglapati Tripathi. The said plot is alleged to have been gifted by the late father during his lifetime to the contesting respondent no. 6 herein i.e. Smt. Annapurna Devi D/o Bhauja Lal. A mutation application under Section 34 of the L.R. Act registered as Case No. 233 of 1995 was filed to get her name recorded over the said plot on the strength of the aforesaid gift dated 03.06.1995. The mutation case came to be allowed by the Nayab Tehsildar vide order dated 05.08.1995. The petitioner filed a time barred recall application on 08.10.2012 seeking condonation of delay and recall of the order dated

05.08.1995. The restoration was allowed and order dated

05.08.1995 was set aside vide order dated 29.11.2012. The mutation case after restoration was dismissed for non prosecution on the non appearance of the respondent no. 6 herein vide order dated 29.04.2013. The order dated 29.04.2013 was recalled on the application of the respondent no. 6 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the respondent no. 6 vide order dated 22.11.2016. The order dated 22.11.2016 was also recalled at the instance of the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.2023 and the mutation case was restored to its original number and parties were given due opportunity to press their respective cases so that an order on merits could be passed. This order dated 23.06.2023 was again assailed by the respondent no. 6 in revision before the Board of Revenue which dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.07.2023 having been filed assailing an interlocutory order. A review was filed by the respondent no. 6 against the order dated 20.07.2023 which was allowed vide order dated 19.09.2023, the revision was restored to its original number and admitted and operation of the order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 23.06.2023 was stayed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Board of Revenue allowing the review i.e. 19.09.2023 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in Writ B-No. 3746 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2024, however, the Board of Revenue was directed to conclude the pending proceedings of the revision expeditiously within a period of four weeks.

5. It is contended that the Board of Revenue has now by the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 23.06.2023 of the Naib Tehsildar and allowed the mutation application in favour of the respondent no. 6 on the strength of the gift dated 03.06.1995. It is also argued that the gifted property is ancestral property and could not have been gifted by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent no. 6 The Naib Tehsildar under his order dated 05.08.1995 without examining the genuineness of the gift directed for mutation of the donee respondent no. 6 merely on the statement of the donar i.e. Late Manlapati Tripathi (father of the petitioner). A civil suit being O.S. No. 474 of 2021 questioning the gift has already been filed and is pending yet mutation has been ordered. It is also argued that the ingredients of a valid gift were not made out inasmuch as possession was never delivered to the respondent no. 6. It is thus submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue being patently illegal is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be allowed as prayed.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 6 submit that the Board of Revenue was entirely justified in passing the impugned order inasmuch as the mutation order was passed after recording the statement of the donar during his lifetime. No objections were raised to the gift deed during the life time of the donar late Manglapati Tripathi. The Board of Revenue has recorded adequate reasons for allowing the revision and no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the records. Having gone through the records as also the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, I find that the Board of Revenue has recorded adequate reasons for arriving at the conclusion so arrived at which do not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition arises out of summary proceedings which are not binding on the rights of the parties. The mutation has been ordered on the basis of the gift which has duly been acknowledged by the donar. The gift is already questioned in O.S. No. 474 of 2021 which is pending. There is no order operating in the suit preventing the mutation order. The mutation order shall abide by the outcome of the proceedings of the civil suit pending between the parties. No jurisdictional error or any illegality can be said to have been committed by the Board of Revenue in passing the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

8. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad