High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Shesh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Apar Ayukt, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Maurya,Ajay Kumar Shukla,Alka Rani,Ambrish Kumar,Rupali Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Act for mutation of land of gata No.880 area 1.012 Hectare situated at Village Raina, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli .

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had sold the aforesaid disputed land situated at gata No.880 in favour of private respondent who had moved application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Code before Tehsildar, Maharajganj, District Raebareli. The petitioner filed his objection to the said application stating three reasons; that he has not received the entire consideration for the said land from the applicants; secondly the petitioners claiming themselves to be belonging to scheduled caste category and consequently stated that no objection certificate has to be received from the District Magistrate under Section 157 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which has not been received and lastly that the land was already mortgaged to the bank and, therefore, considering the aforesaid objections, Tehsildar, Maharajganj by means of order dated 30.9.2013 rejected all the aforesaid objections stating that the petitioner had duly obtained permission to sell the land from Additional District Magistrate/ Land vide letter dated 28.6.2006 and also that he had received entire sale consideration for the said land and accordingly only thereafter the District Magistrate had issued no objection certificate on 28.6.2006 under Section 157 A of U.P. Land Revenue Act and accorded no objection on the application filed by the petitioner for permission to sell the said land and the petitioner has not been able to file any document which may demonstrate that the land was mortgaged with any bank and accordingly rejected the objections of the petitioner and allowed the application for mutation.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Tehsildar, Maharajganj, Raebareli filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj, District Raebareli under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act where again he canvassed all the grounds raised by him before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Maharajganj which has also been rejected vide order dated 21.7.2017. Thereafter he filed a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) First, Lucknow where after a detailed examination of the contentions raised by the petitioner the revisional authority rejected the revision on 29.10.2022 and even the application for recall of the said order was rejected on 27.2.2025.

5. Assailing both the orders the petitioner again canvassed all the grounds raised by this before the authorities below and in the revision after a detailed examination of the contentions raised by the petitioner the revisionist authority rejected it on 19.20.2020 and revison of the said order was also rejected on 7.7.2020.

6. Learned counsel reiterated the arguments raised before the revisional authority in support of his contentions. It was stated that the petitioner is very old person aged about 100 years and the respondents had played fraud upon him while executing the said sale deed. It was stated that entire sale consideration was not received by the petitioner and mutation proceedings could be carried out only after the entire sale proceeds were received by him and accordingly had challenged the order passed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. He stated that Rs.70,000/- was further outstanding on the private respondent towards the sale consideration and unless and until the same was paid to him the land could not be mutated in favour of the respondent.

7. Before the Additional Commissioner there was a stand taken by the petitioner that, in fact, he had executed the said sale deed and there is no dispute with regard to sale proceedings and he was of the considered opinion that in case there was any dispute with regard to outstanding dues of sale consideration the said dispute could not be taken up by the revisional authorities for which he would have adequate civil remedy before appropriate court and even if the objections of the petitioner were sustainable the authorities could not reject the application under Section 34 moved by the private respondent and consequently rejected the revision preferred by him.

8. Assailing all the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has reiterated the grounds raised by him before the authorities below.

9. From the discussions made above, we find that there was cogent reason recorded by those authorities which found fact that the petitioner had, in fact, executed the sale deed in favour of the private respondent whereby the land of gata No.880 measuring 1.012 hectare was sold by him.

10. Once this aspect of the matter stood concluded, the revisional authorities did not have any other option than to reject the application for restoration of the case. In case, the petitioner disputes the same he would have adequate civil remedy before appropriate court for cancellation of the sale deed but till such time sale proceedings be considered from the stage of execution of the sale proceedings is not denied by the petitioner.

11. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below allowing the application under Section 34. We have also perused the orders order passed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities and find that all the provisions of law were followed. While executing the sale deed necessary permission under Section 157 A of the Land Revenue Act was obtained and by means of order passed by Additional District Magistrate has granted permission to sell the land considering the fact that the petitioner belonged to scheduled caste.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the orders impugned in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

13. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has adequate remedy before appropriate civil court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Shesh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Apar Ayukt, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar Maurya,Ajay Kumar Shukla,Alka Rani,Ambrish Kumar,Rupali Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Act for mutation of land of gata No.880 area 1.012 Hectare situated at Village Raina, Pargana Bachhrawan, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli .

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had sold the aforesaid disputed land situated at gata No.880 in favour of private respondent who had moved application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Code before Tehsildar, Maharajganj, District Raebareli. The petitioner filed his objection to the said application stating three reasons; that he has not received the entire consideration for the said land from the applicants; secondly the petitioners claiming themselves to be belonging to scheduled caste category and consequently stated that no objection certificate has to be received from the District Magistrate under Section 157 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which has not been received and lastly that the land was already mortgaged to the bank and, therefore, considering the aforesaid objections, Tehsildar, Maharajganj by means of order dated 30.9.2013 rejected all the aforesaid objections stating that the petitioner had duly obtained permission to sell the land from Additional District Magistrate/ Land vide letter dated 28.6.2006 and also that he had received entire sale consideration for the said land and accordingly only thereafter the District Magistrate had issued no objection certificate on 28.6.2006 under Section 157 A of U.P. Land Revenue Act and accorded no objection on the application filed by the petitioner for permission to sell the said land and the petitioner has not been able to file any document which may demonstrate that the land was mortgaged with any bank and accordingly rejected the objections of the petitioner and allowed the application for mutation.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Tehsildar, Maharajganj, Raebareli filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj, District Raebareli under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act where again he canvassed all the grounds raised by him before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Maharajganj which has also been rejected vide order dated 21.7.2017. Thereafter he filed a revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial) First, Lucknow where after a detailed examination of the contentions raised by the petitioner the revisional authority rejected the revision on 29.10.2022 and even the application for recall of the said order was rejected on 27.2.2025.

5. Assailing both the orders the petitioner again canvassed all the grounds raised by this before the authorities below and in the revision after a detailed examination of the contentions raised by the petitioner the revisionist authority rejected it on 19.20.2020 and revison of the said order was also rejected on 7.7.2020.

6. Learned counsel reiterated the arguments raised before the revisional authority in support of his contentions. It was stated that the petitioner is very old person aged about 100 years and the respondents had played fraud upon him while executing the said sale deed. It was stated that entire sale consideration was not received by the petitioner and mutation proceedings could be carried out only after the entire sale proceeds were received by him and accordingly had challenged the order passed under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. He stated that Rs.70,000/- was further outstanding on the private respondent towards the sale consideration and unless and until the same was paid to him the land could not be mutated in favour of the respondent.

7. Before the Additional Commissioner there was a stand taken by the petitioner that, in fact, he had executed the said sale deed and there is no dispute with regard to sale proceedings and he was of the considered opinion that in case there was any dispute with regard to outstanding dues of sale consideration the said dispute could not be taken up by the revisional authorities for which he would have adequate civil remedy before appropriate court and even if the objections of the petitioner were sustainable the authorities could not reject the application under Section 34 moved by the private respondent and consequently rejected the revision preferred by him.

8. Assailing all the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has reiterated the grounds raised by him before the authorities below.

9. From the discussions made above, we find that there was cogent reason recorded by those authorities which found fact that the petitioner had, in fact, executed the sale deed in favour of the private respondent whereby the land of gata No.880 measuring 1.012 hectare was sold by him.

10. Once this aspect of the matter stood concluded, the revisional authorities did not have any other option than to reject the application for restoration of the case. In case, the petitioner disputes the same he would have adequate civil remedy before appropriate court for cancellation of the sale deed but till such time sale proceedings be considered from the stage of execution of the sale proceedings is not denied by the petitioner.

11. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below allowing the application under Section 34. We have also perused the orders order passed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities and find that all the provisions of law were followed. While executing the sale deed necessary permission under Section 157 A of the Land Revenue Act was obtained and by means of order passed by Additional District Magistrate has granted permission to sell the land considering the fact that the petitioner belonged to scheduled caste.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the orders impugned in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

13. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has adequate remedy before appropriate civil court. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench