Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.C. Singh for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Sub -Divisional Officer dated 18.4.2013 by which the appeal filed by Dinesh Kumar Agarwal has been allowed and his name has been directed to be mutated on the basis of sale -deed dated 16.10.2003 executed by Satish Kumar in his favour.
(2.) ON the basis of sale -deed executed by Satish Kumar dated 16.10.2003 Dinesh Kumar Agarwal filed an application for mutation of his name over the land in dispute. Initially the mutation application was allowed by order dated 3.1.2004 thereafter Smt. Asha Devi filed an application for recall of the order which was allowed and thereafter the matter was heard by the Tehsildar who by the order dated 30.6.2010 found that Satish Kumar was not mentally fit at the time of execution of the sale -deed dated 16.10.2003 and the sale -deed is void and no mutation can be made on its basis accordingly the mutation application was dismissed. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal filed an appeal registered as Appeal No. 88 of 2010 -11 under section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The appeal was heard by the Sub -Divisional Officer who by the order dated 18.4.2013 found that there is no evidence to show that Satish Kumar was suffering from mental illness on 16.10.2003 and the sale -deed being a registered document while evidence to mental illness of Satish Kumar was of the year 2009. In such circumstances the mutation on the basis of sale -deed is required to be made accordingly he allowed the appeal and maintained the order dated 3.1.2004 directing to mutate the name of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 168 C of 2013) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Additional Commissioner who by the order dated 9.9.2014 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been stated in the evidence of the petitioner that Satish Kumar was not mentally fit in the year 2003 however his evidence relating to his medical illness has been filed of the year 2009. The Tehsildar relied upon the evidence of the petitioner and held that Satish Kumar was not mentally fit and sale -deed executed by Satish Kumar dated 16.10.2003 was void. The Appellate Court has illegally ignored the objection of the petitioner and relied upon the objection of Smt. Asha Devi who also died during pendency of the appeal and held that there was no evidence of the mental illness of Satish Kumar of the year 2003. He further submits that order dated 3.1.2004 has been set aside in the recall application filed by Smt. Asha Devi but it has been illegally restored by the Sub -Divisional Officer. All these points have been raised before the Additional Commissioner but the Revisional Court has not entered into the controversy raised by the petitioner and dismissed the revision only on the ground that as the mutation proceeding is a summary proceeding and it cannot be withheld for a long time.
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The Sub -Divisional Officer found that there is no evidence to show that Satish Kumar was not mentally fit at the time of execution of the sale -deed dated 16.10.2003 as the evidences relating to his mental illness were of the year 2009. The finding of fact recorded by the Sub -Divisional Officer in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. So far as in the operative portion of the order by which he directed to restore the order dated 3.1.2004, is concerned, it is way of style of judgment writing of an Executive Officer who has not well trained person in this respect and he has allowed the mutation application of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal. As earlier by the order dated 3.1.2004 name of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal was mutated therefore he maintained that order. The effect of the order is to maintain the mutation of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal on the basis of sale -deed dated 16.10.2003. So far as the order of Additional Commissioner is concerned, it is a judgment of concurrence as such in the absence any illegality being found in the order of Sub -Divisional Officer no useful purpose will be served for setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner.;