HARIHAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava, the petitioner who has appeared in person and Sri B.B. Paul for the caveator, respondent no.6. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and seeks quashing of the orders passed by the Tehsildar Koraon, Allahabad, whereby the respondent no.6 was ordered to be mutated over the land in question and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Allahabad and Additional Commissioner (First), Allahabad Division, Allahabad affirming the order passed by the Tehsildar in appeal and revision respectively.

(2.) The respondent filed an application seeking mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 06.01.1993 executed by the petitioner in her favour regarding the northern portion of plot no.63 -B, area 2.434 Hectare situated in village Bhausara Jagir, Tappa Manda, Pargana Kairagar, Tehsil Koraon, District Allahabad. The mutation case was contested by the petitioner alleging therein that the sale deed was forged and the same has been got registered by setting up an imposter. This imposter was set up by the husband of the respondent no.6, who is an employee in the Collectorate. The petitioner came to know of the sale deed only when the mutation case was filed.

(3.) It is also contended that the respondents filed a suit No.1435 of 1993 for injunction in the Court of Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Allahabad. The application for interim injunction filed in the suit was rejected by the Trial Court on 30.07.2001. The appeal and the consequential writ petition were also dismissed. The petitioner has also instituted a suit No.30 of 1996 for cancellation of the forged sale deed. The husband of respondent no.6, in collusion with the Court employees, managed to remove three pages of the plaint filed by him and after such tampering in the record, filed a tampered copy of the plaint in the mutation case and this tampered copy is the basis of the impugned orders, despite the fact that an inquiry was conducted wherein a finding was returned that tampering had been done with the plaint and one Ramesh Lal was found to be responsible for the same and a show cause notice were issued. It is next contended that a Civil Suit for injunction namely suit No.1435 of 1993 filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Trial court on 23.09.2005 with the finding that the plaintiff ( respondent no.6) had not been able to prove her exclusive possession over the land, alleged to have been purchased by her. On the basis of this fact, it is submitted that since the respondent no.4 was not found to be, in possession by the Civil Court, mutation in her favour could not have been granted, inasmuch as, the mutation proceedings are to be decided primarily on the basis of possession alone.