Court No. - 28 Civil Misc. Stay Application no. 21018 of 2008 in Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5178 of 2008 Petitioner :- Mangal Prasad & Others Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Chitrakootdham Division & Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.S. Kushwaha Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Trivedi,Omkar Singh,R.L. Singh Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Cause list has been revised. Sri V.S. Kushwaha learned counsel for the
petitioner is present. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. Counter
affidavit of respondent no. 3 is available on record.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioners and respondent
no. 4 were co-bhumidhars of the land in question and respondent no. 3 is the
subsequent purchaser from respondent no. 4. He states that a proceeding was
initiated by respondent no. 4 before the court of Sub Divisional Officer,
Karvi. Mau under Section 176, 178 and 182 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for
division of the bhumidhari which was registered as Case no. 46/5.6.90 and an
order dated 25.6.1996 was passed with consent of the parties that none of the
parties will sell out the land in question. According to him the aforesaid
proceeding is still pending and the bhumidhari has not been divided finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inspite of the aforesaid
proceeding and interim order the respondent no. 4 has sold his share in the
land in question to the respondent no. 3 by the sale deed dated 22.11.2003 and
was seeking mutation of his name in the revenue record to which the
petitioners had filed objection and the Tehsildar, Karvi, Chitrakoot in Case
no. 150/03 under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act rejected the application
for mutation made by the respondent no. 3 on 16.1.2004.
Learned counsel states that in appeal the appellate court has allowed the
appeal of respondent no. 3 illegally inasmuch as a stay order is operating in
the proceeding for division of bhumidhari. According to him his revision filed
against the appellate order has also been rejected.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties it is true
that mere entry in the revenue record neither extinguishes nor confers any title
on the person and therefore the proceedings for mutation being summary in
nature cannot effect the legal right of the owners. However in view of the fact
that there was an injunction operating in proceedings for division of
bhumidhari and the respondent no. 4 appears to have violated the injunction
order the petitioner has made out a primafacie case.
Until further orders of this court the operation of the impugned order dated
24.10.2007 passed in revision no. 323/20 of 2004-05 as also the appellate
order dated 3.7.2004 passed in Appeal no. 45 of 2004 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2010
Pravin
Court No. – 28
Case :- WRIT – C No. – 5178 of 2008
Petitioner :- Mangal Prasad & Others
Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner Chitrakootdham Division & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- V.S. Kushwaha
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K.Trivedi,Omkar Singh,R.L. Singh
Hon’ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Issue notice to the respondent no. 4. Steps be taken by registered post AD
within two weeks.
Order Date :- 12.8.2010
Pravin