J.J. Munir, J. - (1.)In the proceedings for mutation filed by respondent No.4-Omkar Sharma, seeking to give effect to his rights on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2011, executed by Jai Bhagwan-respondent No.5 to the writ petition, objections were raised to the mutation by the petitioner, Devendra Sharma on ground that he held an agreement to sell relating to the property in dispute, executed by Jai Bhagwan and was in possession of the said property on the basis of the said agreement. The aforesaid objection of the petitioner was rejected and mutation on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.11.2011 granted in favour of respondent No.4-Omkar Sharma. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No.3 of 2012-13, under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Modi Nagar, who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Court of first instance for decision afresh. Against the appellate order, a Revision was filed by respondent No.4-Omkar Sharma, vendor before the Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut, which came to be dismissed vide an order dated 17.2.2017 summarily, thus affirming the order of remand passed in appeal. Pending proceedings for mutation after remand, an application dated 9.7.2015 was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Tehsildar saying that the vendor Jai Bhagwan was not in a fit state of mental health and was, therefore, incompetent to execute the sale deed. It was, therefore, prayed that pending determination of his mental health on an examination to be done by the department of Psychiatry, K.G. Medical University, Lucknow and receipt of their certificate on that issue, proceedings of the mutation case be stayed. The said application has come to be rejected vide order dated 20.06.2016, passed by the Tehsildar, Modi Nagar.
(2.)From the order aforesaid passed by the Tehsildar, Modi Nagar, the petitioner filed a Revision to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, who allowed the said Revision, set aside the order of the Tehsildar dated 20.06.2016 and ordered that pending determination of the status of vendor's mental health and competence to execute the sale deed, the ongoing proceedings of mutation be kept in abeyance. This revisional order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut, in Revision No.67 of 2015-16 was challenged by Omkar Sharma, Vendee, by a Revision to the Board of Revenue, being Revision No.2531 of 2016 (Ghaziabad) on 4.11.2016, which came up for determination before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow. The Board of Revenue, vide its order dated 08.04.2019 allowed the said Revision preferred by the Vendee and set aside the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, and directed the mutation case to proceed. The said order has now been challenged by Devendra Sharma, at whose instance an order of stay of mutation proceedings was passed. Devendra Sharma submits that unless the mental fitness of the vendor Jai Bhagwan is determined by a competent Psychiatrist, mutation proceedings cannot go on. This Court is of opinion that challenging the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.4 by respondent No.5, the petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation before the Court of civil jurisdiction, a fact that is not in issue. This Court is of clear opinion that mutation proceedings that are very summary in nature, and are essentially fiscal, in order to safeguard the revenue of the State cannot be permitted to be converted into a battle field for parties to settle all kinds of disputes, with regard to their private rights, concerning the subject transaction. Mutation proceedings properly so called are no lis in that sense of the term, where title of parties, and much more than that, their mental competence to execute a conveyance may become the subject matter of adjudication. If that were permitted, it would not only embarrass mutation proceedings but almost render mutation authorities dysfunctional.
(3.)The order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is perfectly legal and substantially just. It does not call for any interference.