High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Ramawati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Nath Yadav,Rupendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Beant Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Vijai Bahadur Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the Gaon Sabha and Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents no.7 to 9.

2. All the parties are duly represented and considering the nature of the controversy involved in the instant petition, learned counsel for the parties have consented that the petition may be disposed of at the admission state itself as the private respondents do not wish to file any counter-afÏdavit.

3. In order to put the controversy in a prespective certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being summed up only for the purposes of putting the record straight.

4. The dispute emanated on account of death of Putti Lal and there were conflicting claims regarding his property. Putti Lal died sometime in the year 2014 and he was survived by his wife Smt. Ramawati (this fact is disputed by the private respondents)

5. In turn, it is stated by the petitioners that after the death of Ramawati, she was survived by four daughters, namely, Meena Kumar, Mamta, Savita and Lalita and (this fact is also disputed by the private respondent). It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioners had moved an application for mutation which came to be allowed on 06.03.2020. Later, the private respondents no.7 to 9 also moved an application for mutation which came to be allowed on 28.10.2021.

6. At this stage, there were two conflicting mutation orders. On becoming aware of the subsequent order dated 28.10.2021 the petitioners filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on 01.09.2022. This was carried in a revision which was allowed on 24.02.2023, against which the private respondents had preferred recall and review which both came to be dismissed. This prompted the private respondent to further escalate the matter before the High Court in Writ-B No.526 of 2023 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties by means of order dated 03.07.2023 set aside the orders dated 24.02.2023, 03.04.2023 and 02.05.2023 and remanded the matter to the Court of Additional Commissioner for deciding the issue of maintainability of the revision afresh. It was further provided that the revision shall be decided within a period of two months.

7. In furtherance of the order passed by the High Court dated 03.07.2023, the matter became alive before the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, on 27.09.2023, the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. However, this dismissal was on a technical ground regarding defect of the parties and while dismissing the revision liberty was granted to the petitioners to file fresh with appropriate parties.

8. The petitioners taking cue of the order passed by the revisional court exercise its rights of filing a fresh revision with appropriate parties and, in the meantime, the private respondents, on the other hand, assailed the order dated 27.09.2023 before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the liberty which was granted by the Court of Additional Commissioner was not appropriate. In the revision preferred by the private respondents, the Board of Revenue by means of order dated 08.11.2023 admitted the revision and issued notices to the respondents in the revision, called for the records and fixed 20.02.2024. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue in the said revision on 22.07.2024 passed another order restraining the parties not to create any third party rights in respect of the property in question.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop while the revision which was pending before the Additional Commissioner (preferred by the petitioners) and wherein order dated 14.10.2024 came to be passed wherein the Additional Commissioner noticed to the aforesaid facts including that the private respondents herein had preferred revision which was engaging the attention of the Board of Revenue and since an order has been passed admitting the revision which necessarily would have an impact on the outcome of the revision before the Additional Commissioner, hence in his wisdom it abated the proceedings vide order dated 14.10.2024 with liberty that the matter may be revived, once the revision is decided by the Board of Revenue.

10. It is in the aforesaid factual context that the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant petition assailing the order dated 08.03.2023 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents against the order dated 27.09.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh revision, was entertained and admitted by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners have also assailed the subsequent order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.07.2024 whereby the parties were restrained from creating any third party rights.

11. Learned counsel for both sides have made their respective submissions. However, the undisputed fact is that the High Court by means of order dated 03.07.2023 had remanded the matter to the Court of Additional Commissioner to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the revision. In this view of the matter, the Additional Commissioner instead of considering the maintainability of substantive ground found that there was certain defect in the array of the parties and noticing the same it dismissed the revision and granted liberty to the petitioners herein to file afresh with appropriate parties.

12. It is to be seen that neither the revisional court in its order dated 27.09.2023 discussed any substantive provision or embargo in law which could have prevented the revision to be heard but once it found that there was certain defect in the parties, it would have been most appropriate that at that very stage an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioners to amend the array of the parties and only upon failing to do so it was open for the revisional court to have passed certain orders as required in law.

13. This Court finds that the Additional Commissioner while dismissing the revision and liberty was granted to file afresh, this did not impact or decide any right of either of the parties which could have compelled the private respondents herein to file a revision before the Board of Revenue. The grant of liberty to file fresh was most innocuous; inasmuch as once the revisional court found that the revision suffered from defect of parties, at this stage, there were two options; (i) the most appropriate being to permit the party to correct the parties at that very stage as this would have curtailed further litigation; (ii) the course which was adopted i.e. during the revision while granting liberty to implead the necessary correct parties by filing fresh.

14. It is in this view that further two upshot of litigations emerged. One filed by the private respondents while taking the matter to the Board of Revenue and the other the fresh revision which was filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the liberty granted vide order dated 27.09.2023.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties both have arrived at a consensus and they have agreed that the private respondents shall not press their revision before the Board of Revenue and the petitioners also submits that they shall not press their subsequent revision which was filed in pursuance of the liberty granted vide order dated 27.09.2023 and the petitioners agree to correct the array of parties. As a consequence of the statement given by the learned counsel for the parties this petition is partly allowed and disposed of with the following directions, (i) learned counsel for the private respondents shall move an application before Board of Revenue to not press their revision within one week from today and the Board of Revenue shall pass appropriate orders thereon within two days of filing of the said appeal, (ii) the petitioners shall also move an appropriate application in their revision No.1974 of 2022 to correct the array of parties by 03.03.2025.

16. Consequently, the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner shall stand modified to the extent that instead of granting the liberty to the petitioners, it shall be treated as having been given a week's time to the petitioners to correct the array of the parties and the same shall stand restored on the board of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division.

17. This Court further provides that the parties shall appear before the Court of Commissioner, Lucknow Division i.e. the respondent no.3 whereby the Revision No.1974 of 2022 would stand transferred. The parties shall complete exchange of their pleadings so that the matter can be heard and be decided by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division within a period of six weeks, from the date, the parties appear before the revisional court i.e. on 03.03.2025.

18. Learned Standing Counsel who represents the State-respondents shall ensure that the record which are available before the Board of Revenue shall be placed before the Court of Commissioner, Lucknow Division by 28.02.2025.

19. It is made clear that the orders have been set aside as they did not consider basic postulate of substantial justice in minimizing multiplicity of proceedings. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and both the parties shall be entitled to raise all plea that are available to them in law and the Commissioner, Lucknow Division shall after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment shall endeavour to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law within the time span. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Ramawati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Nath Yadav,Rupendra Kumar Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Beant Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Vijai Bahadur Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the Gaon Sabha and Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents no.7 to 9.

2. All the parties are duly represented and considering the nature of the controversy involved in the instant petition, learned counsel for the parties have consented that the petition may be disposed of at the admission state itself as the private respondents do not wish to file any counter-afÏdavit.

3. In order to put the controversy in a prespective certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being summed up only for the purposes of putting the record straight.

4. The dispute emanated on account of death of Putti Lal and there were conflicting claims regarding his property. Putti Lal died sometime in the year 2014 and he was survived by his wife Smt. Ramawati (this fact is disputed by the private respondents)

5. In turn, it is stated by the petitioners that after the death of Ramawati, she was survived by four daughters, namely, Meena Kumar, Mamta, Savita and Lalita and (this fact is also disputed by the private respondent). It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioners had moved an application for mutation which came to be allowed on 06.03.2020. Later, the private respondents no.7 to 9 also moved an application for mutation which came to be allowed on 28.10.2021.

6. At this stage, there were two conflicting mutation orders. On becoming aware of the subsequent order dated 28.10.2021 the petitioners filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on 01.09.2022. This was carried in a revision which was allowed on 24.02.2023, against which the private respondents had preferred recall and review which both came to be dismissed. This prompted the private respondent to further escalate the matter before the High Court in Writ-B No.526 of 2023 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties by means of order dated 03.07.2023 set aside the orders dated 24.02.2023, 03.04.2023 and 02.05.2023 and remanded the matter to the Court of Additional Commissioner for deciding the issue of maintainability of the revision afresh. It was further provided that the revision shall be decided within a period of two months.

7. In furtherance of the order passed by the High Court dated 03.07.2023, the matter became alive before the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, on 27.09.2023, the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. However, this dismissal was on a technical ground regarding defect of the parties and while dismissing the revision liberty was granted to the petitioners to file fresh with appropriate parties.

8. The petitioners taking cue of the order passed by the revisional court exercise its rights of filing a fresh revision with appropriate parties and, in the meantime, the private respondents, on the other hand, assailed the order dated 27.09.2023 before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the liberty which was granted by the Court of Additional Commissioner was not appropriate. In the revision preferred by the private respondents, the Board of Revenue by means of order dated 08.11.2023 admitted the revision and issued notices to the respondents in the revision, called for the records and fixed 20.02.2024. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue in the said revision on 22.07.2024 passed another order restraining the parties not to create any third party rights in respect of the property in question.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop while the revision which was pending before the Additional Commissioner (preferred by the petitioners) and wherein order dated 14.10.2024 came to be passed wherein the Additional Commissioner noticed to the aforesaid facts including that the private respondents herein had preferred revision which was engaging the attention of the Board of Revenue and since an order has been passed admitting the revision which necessarily would have an impact on the outcome of the revision before the Additional Commissioner, hence in his wisdom it abated the proceedings vide order dated 14.10.2024 with liberty that the matter may be revived, once the revision is decided by the Board of Revenue.

10. It is in the aforesaid factual context that the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant petition assailing the order dated 08.03.2023 whereby the revision preferred by the private respondents against the order dated 27.09.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh revision, was entertained and admitted by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners have also assailed the subsequent order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 22.07.2024 whereby the parties were restrained from creating any third party rights.

11. Learned counsel for both sides have made their respective submissions. However, the undisputed fact is that the High Court by means of order dated 03.07.2023 had remanded the matter to the Court of Additional Commissioner to consider and decide the issue of maintainability of the revision. In this view of the matter, the Additional Commissioner instead of considering the maintainability of substantive ground found that there was certain defect in the array of the parties and noticing the same it dismissed the revision and granted liberty to the petitioners herein to file afresh with appropriate parties.

12. It is to be seen that neither the revisional court in its order dated 27.09.2023 discussed any substantive provision or embargo in law which could have prevented the revision to be heard but once it found that there was certain defect in the parties, it would have been most appropriate that at that very stage an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioners to amend the array of the parties and only upon failing to do so it was open for the revisional court to have passed certain orders as required in law.

13. This Court finds that the Additional Commissioner while dismissing the revision and liberty was granted to file afresh, this did not impact or decide any right of either of the parties which could have compelled the private respondents herein to file a revision before the Board of Revenue. The grant of liberty to file fresh was most innocuous; inasmuch as once the revisional court found that the revision suffered from defect of parties, at this stage, there were two options; (i) the most appropriate being to permit the party to correct the parties at that very stage as this would have curtailed further litigation; (ii) the course which was adopted i.e. during the revision while granting liberty to implead the necessary correct parties by filing fresh.

14. It is in this view that further two upshot of litigations emerged. One filed by the private respondents while taking the matter to the Board of Revenue and the other the fresh revision which was filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the liberty granted vide order dated 27.09.2023.

15. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties both have arrived at a consensus and they have agreed that the private respondents shall not press their revision before the Board of Revenue and the petitioners also submits that they shall not press their subsequent revision which was filed in pursuance of the liberty granted vide order dated 27.09.2023 and the petitioners agree to correct the array of parties. As a consequence of the statement given by the learned counsel for the parties this petition is partly allowed and disposed of with the following directions, (i) learned counsel for the private respondents shall move an application before Board of Revenue to not press their revision within one week from today and the Board of Revenue shall pass appropriate orders thereon within two days of filing of the said appeal, (ii) the petitioners shall also move an appropriate application in their revision No.1974 of 2022 to correct the array of parties by 03.03.2025.

16. Consequently, the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner shall stand modified to the extent that instead of granting the liberty to the petitioners, it shall be treated as having been given a week's time to the petitioners to correct the array of the parties and the same shall stand restored on the board of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division.

17. This Court further provides that the parties shall appear before the Court of Commissioner, Lucknow Division i.e. the respondent no.3 whereby the Revision No.1974 of 2022 would stand transferred. The parties shall complete exchange of their pleadings so that the matter can be heard and be decided by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division within a period of six weeks, from the date, the parties appear before the revisional court i.e. on 03.03.2025.

18. Learned Standing Counsel who represents the State-respondents shall ensure that the record which are available before the Board of Revenue shall be placed before the Court of Commissioner, Lucknow Division by 28.02.2025.

19. It is made clear that the orders have been set aside as they did not consider basic postulate of substantial justice in minimizing multiplicity of proceedings. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and both the parties shall be entitled to raise all plea that are available to them in law and the Commissioner, Lucknow Division shall after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment shall endeavour to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law within the time span. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench