Singhasan Prasad vs Collector, Kushinagar and others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—This is an unfortunate case where the vendor has virtually made the petitioner and the contesting respondents an object of a legal circus, where none of the litigants, in the proceedings which are going on, are to achieve anything.

The respondent No. 5 Shyam Lal is said to have received certain amount from the petitioner and a sale-deed was prepared for being executed and registered in favour of the petitioner in the year 2006. The sale-deed is said to have been prepared on 29.8.2006.

The case of the petitioner is that when the sale-deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Shyam Lal by making an excuse of going to the toilet ran away from the office of the Sub-Registrar, as a result whereof, the sale-deed could not be registered. In such a situation, the consequence and the remedy provided for is contained in sections 72 and 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. It appears that no proper advice was given to the petitioner and at least there is nothing on record to indicate the same where after a civil suit was filed by the petitioner and a criminal prosecution has also been attempted by moving an application u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is alleged that the civil suit is still pending in which an injunction order was passed on 25.2.2010. A copy of the order passed in the civil suit is Annexure RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit.

Another suit was filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by Shyam Lal in favour of the respondent No. 3 Rama Nand represented by Sri R.S. Sharma, Advocate, who has filed a counter-affidavit. The said suit is for cancellation of the sale-deed which is also pending. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Thus two civil suits and a criminal prosecution have been launched in relation to the said proceedings.

In between, an application was moved u/s 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for mutation and the respondent Shyam Lal succeeded in setting the same into motion.

The present writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the orders dated 8.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 whereby the objection/application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and directions have been issued for further proceeding in the matter. The revision filed against the said order by the petitioner has been dismissed on 24.12.2009 by the learned Collector, Kushinagar. Hence this petition. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 25.1.2010 staying all further proceedings before the Tehsildar u/s 34 of the 1901 Act.

During the pendency of this writ petition, it appears that the sale-deed, which was executed in favour of Rama Nand by Shyam Lal became subject-matter of another proceeding being in violation of the provisions of section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. Accordingly, in the said proceedings the sale-deed was treated to be invalid and void. Those proceedings are still being pursued by the respondent separately before the appropriate forum. In such a situation, the sale-deed of the respondent Rama Nand also cannot be given effect to.

Once this is the position and these facts are not disputed by the respondents then in such an event the application filed by Rama Nand cannot be proceeded before the Tehsildar. Accordingly, so long as, the petitioner does not succeed in the civil suitor gets an appropriate order or the respondent Rama Nand is able to establish his title in the proceedings as referred to hereinabove, there will be no occasion for the Tehsildar to proceed in the matter. The proceedings before the Tehsildar at this stage are therefore futile.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the parties to approach the Tehsildar for any mutation as and when they are able to establish their title before the appropriate forum.

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

These two applications have been filed for correcting the narration of fact as contained in the third paragraph at page-2 of the judgment which begins and ends with the following words "During the pendency....be given effect".

The correction sought is that it is the sale executed by Ramanand in favour of Kailash Bihari Pandey which was subject-matter of consideration being hit by section 157-A whereas the fact has been narrated as if it was a transaction between Ramanand and Shyam Lal that was hit by the said provisions. Accordingly, the sentence beginning with the words "it appears....1950" shall stand deleted and be substituted by the words "it appears that the sale-deed which was executed by Ramanand in favour of Kailash Bihari Pandey became subject-matter of proceedings on the ground that it was hit by section 157-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950".

Accordingly, the order dated 9.9.2011 shall stand corrected.

The application is disposed of.