Vimal Gangwar v. Baburam), the Tehsildar, Faridpur, Tehsil

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice, which as per Office Report dated 15.04.2025 is reported to be sufficient, upon respondent No. 2/Madhuri Gangwar is hereby dispensed with. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "(1) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by opposite party no. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition." Brief facts of the case are to the effect that in mutation case instituted under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 32/2024, Computerized Case No. T202412130300032 (Vimal Gangwar vs. Baburam), the Tehsildar, Faridpur, Tehsil- Faridpur, District- Bareilly (in short "Tehsildar") vide order dated 04.01.2024/25.10.2023 recalled the order dated 16.10.2023 and restored the case to its original number. In this case, the Tehsildar vide order dated 25.10.2023 also protected the interest of the parties. Challenging the order dated 04.01.2024/25.10.2023, the side opposite preferred the revision before the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, which was registered as Revision No. REV/3154/2024/Bareilly, Computerized Case No. R20241213003154 (Madhuri Gagngwar vs. Vimal Gangwar), wherein, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 has been passed. The order dated 24.10.2024 reads as under:- यह ननगररनन नरयब तहसनलदरर, फरनदपपर, " कमपययटरनकक त वरद ससखयर- ससनहतर 2006 नदनरसक 04-01-2024/25-10-2023 210 बरवत गरटर ससखयर-309 नम०, टन 202412130300032, कर अनतगरत मर० पररषद नयरयरलय मम ययजजत कक गयन हह। तहसनल फरनदपपर जजलर- बररलन कर दररर वरद ससखयर-32/2024, उ०प० ररजसव बररलन मम परररत आदरश नवरद मरधपरन गसगवरर पपतन बरबयररम कर दररर उ०प० ररजसव ससनहतर कक धररर- सससत गरम-पडडलन, तहसनल-फरनदपपर, जजलर- नवमल गसगवरर बनरम बरबयररम, अनतगरत धररर-34 कर ननगररननकतरर कर 2- नवदरन अजधवकर शन शनश भयषण नमशर कय सपनर गयर एवस पतरवलन कर समयक पररशनलन नकयर गयर। ननगररनन मरमय मम उठरयर गयर नबनदपओस कर नवजधक परनकण नकयर जरनर कर पययजन सर ननगररनन सपनवरई हरतप गहण कक जरतन हह। अवर नयरयरलय कर अनभलरख मसगरयर जरय। नवपकनगणण कय नयनटस परनषत नकयर जरय। अवर नयरयरलय दररर परररत पशनगत आदरश कर पभरव एवस नकयरनवयन ससनगत नकयर जरतर हह। पतरवलन सपनवरई हरतप नदनरसक 28-01-2025 कय पसतपत हय।" Taking note of the entire facts of the case, this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 entertained the instant petition and also observed that till the next date of listing, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question. The order dated 04.03.2025 reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue. Submission is that the mutation proceedings were pending before the Court of Nayab Tehsildar, Faridpur, District Bareilly. Initially, an ex parte order dated 16.10.2023 was passed, against which an application for recall was moved. Upon the said application for recall, the Nayab Tehsildar vide its order dated 04.01.2024 set aside the order dated 16.10.2023 and restored the proceedings fixing 08.01.2024 as the next date. It is urged that the private respondents against the order dated 04.01.2024 filed a revision on 01.10.2024 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. It is urged that the revisional court without issuing notices on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without condoning the delay entertained the revision on its merit and by means of order impugned dated 24.10.2024 has stayed the operation of the order dated 04.01.2024. It is urged that the said order could not have been stayed as an interim measure unless the delay could have been condoned and the delay could not have been condoned without issuing notices or hearing the petitioners and thus the jurisdictional error has been committed by the Board while passing the order dated 24.10.2024. It is further urged that the petitioner has also filed his objection before the Board of Revenue which has not been taken note of and the matter is now listed on 30.04.2025. The matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to the respondent no.2 through speed post. In addition, the petitioner shall serve the private respondent by Dasti Summon. Office shall do the needful and the petitioner shall take steps within next two days. List this matter after service on 27th of March, 2025, as fresh. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also file an affidavit of service. On the next date of listing, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question." Taking note of the entire facts of the case and also para 492 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual as well as remedy available under Section 207 of the Code of 2006 with regard to order passed in mutation case and the observations made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Shivpujan Das Chela Siyaram reported in 2024 165 RD 138: Das Vs. State of U.P. & others, MANU/UP/4354/2024, according to which, the order passed in exercise of power under Section 34/35 of the Code of 2006 can be assailed only by way of appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all pleas related to maintainability of the revision pending before Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow/Revisional Authority, which shall be considered and decided first and thereafter the Revisional Authority shall proceed to consider and decide the aforesaid revision pending before it most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority/Court concerned shall be free to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law. Till decision in the aforesaid revision in terms of this order, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question. With the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice, which as per Office Report dated 15.04.2025 is reported to be sufficient, upon respondent No. 2/Madhuri Gangwar is hereby dispensed with. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "(1) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by opposite party no. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition." Brief facts of the case are to the effect that in mutation case instituted under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") registered as Case No. 32/2024, Computerized Case No. T202412130300032 (Vimal Gangwar vs. Baburam), the Tehsildar, Faridpur, Tehsil- Faridpur, District- Bareilly (in short "Tehsildar") vide order dated 04.01.2024/25.10.2023 recalled the order dated 16.10.2023 and restored the case to its original number. In this case, the Tehsildar vide order dated 25.10.2023 also protected the interest of the parties. Challenging the order dated 04.01.2024/25.10.2023, the side opposite preferred the revision before the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, which was registered as Revision No. REV/3154/2024/Bareilly, Computerized Case No. R20241213003154 (Madhuri Gagngwar vs. Vimal Gangwar), wherein, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 has been passed. The order dated 24.10.2024 reads as under:- यह ननगररनन नरयब तहसनलदरर, फरनदपपर, " कमपययटरनकक त वरद ससखयर- ससनहतर 2006 नदनरसक 04-01-2024/25-10-2023 210 बरवत गरटर ससखयर-309 नम०, टन 202412130300032, कर अनतगरत मर० पररषद नयरयरलय मम ययजजत कक गयन हह। तहसनल फरनदपपर जजलर- बररलन कर दररर वरद ससखयर-32/2024, उ०प० ररजसव बररलन मम परररत आदरश नवरद मरधपरन गसगवरर पपतन बरबयररम कर दररर उ०प० ररजसव ससनहतर कक धररर- सससत गरम-पडडलन, तहसनल-फरनदपपर, जजलर- नवमल गसगवरर बनरम बरबयररम, अनतगरत धररर-34 कर ननगररननकतरर कर 2- नवदरन अजधवकर शन शनश भयषण नमशर कय सपनर गयर एवस पतरवलन कर समयक पररशनलन नकयर गयर। ननगररनन मरमय मम उठरयर गयर नबनदपओस कर नवजधक परनकण नकयर जरनर कर पययजन सर ननगररनन सपनवरई हरतप गहण कक जरतन हह। अवर नयरयरलय कर अनभलरख मसगरयर जरय। नवपकनगणण कय नयनटस परनषत नकयर जरय। अवर नयरयरलय दररर परररत पशनगत आदरश कर पभरव एवस नकयरनवयन ससनगत नकयर जरतर हह। पतरवलन सपनवरई हरतप नदनरसक 28-01-2025 कय पसतपत हय।" Taking note of the entire facts of the case, this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025 entertained the instant petition and also observed that till the next date of listing, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question. The order dated 04.03.2025 reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue. Submission is that the mutation proceedings were pending before the Court of Nayab Tehsildar, Faridpur, District Bareilly. Initially, an ex parte order dated 16.10.2023 was passed, against which an application for recall was moved. Upon the said application for recall, the Nayab Tehsildar vide its order dated 04.01.2024 set aside the order dated 16.10.2023 and restored the proceedings fixing 08.01.2024 as the next date. It is urged that the private respondents against the order dated 04.01.2024 filed a revision on 01.10.2024 alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. It is urged that the revisional court without issuing notices on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without condoning the delay entertained the revision on its merit and by means of order impugned dated 24.10.2024 has stayed the operation of the order dated 04.01.2024. It is urged that the said order could not have been stayed as an interim measure unless the delay could have been condoned and the delay could not have been condoned without issuing notices or hearing the petitioners and thus the jurisdictional error has been committed by the Board while passing the order dated 24.10.2024. It is further urged that the petitioner has also filed his objection before the Board of Revenue which has not been taken note of and the matter is now listed on 30.04.2025. The matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to the respondent no.2 through speed post. In addition, the petitioner shall serve the private respondent by Dasti Summon. Office shall do the needful and the petitioner shall take steps within next two days. List this matter after service on 27th of March, 2025, as fresh. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also file an affidavit of service. On the next date of listing, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question." Taking note of the entire facts of the case and also para 492 of U.P. Revenue Court Manual as well as remedy available under Section 207 of the Code of 2006 with regard to order passed in mutation case and the observations made by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Shivpujan Das Chela Siyaram reported in 2024 165 RD 138: Das Vs. State of U.P. & others, MANU/UP/4354/2024, according to which, the order passed in exercise of power under Section 34/35 of the Code of 2006 can be assailed only by way of appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all pleas related to maintainability of the revision pending before Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow/Revisional Authority, which shall be considered and decided first and thereafter the Revisional Authority shall proceed to consider and decide the aforesaid revision pending before it most expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed in it, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority/Court concerned shall be free to decide the aforesaid case strictly in accordance with law. Till decision in the aforesaid revision in terms of this order, the parties shall not alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the property in question. With the aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench