Allahabad High Court
Smt. Gyan Devi Alias Gyanvati vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 22 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242510
Court No. - 49
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3555 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Gyan Devi Alias Gyanvati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Singh Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajai Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Awadhesh Kumar patel, learned standing counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha / respondent no. 9.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged 14.08.2023 passed by learned Board of Revenue in revision bearing Case No. REV/27/2005-06/Farrukhabad (Smt. Gyanwati Vs. Jaggannath). The learned Board of Revenue in exercise of its power under Section 209 of U.P. Land revenue Act, 1901 passed an order dated 14.8.2023 by which the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed holding therein that the order passed under the Pa.Ka-11 is administrative in nature, hence the same cannot be challenged in the judicial proceedings.
3. At the very outset, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the present writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings which is summary in nature and in the light of settled legal proposition the writ petition in the mutation proceedings are normally not entertainable unless there is any jurisdictional error or any such illegality which may vitiate the proceedings. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Amritansh Pandey Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2023 (9) ADJ 457.
4. Admittedly, the present writ petition arises out of the summary proceedings and this Court has held that mutation in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue.
5. In the case of Jitendra Singh versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2021 (6) Supreme 185, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold the relevant paragraph as under:
"5?. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made."
6. The reluctance of this Court to interfere with the orders under challenge in the instant petition, is primarily that the same are the outcome of the mutation proceedings and it is a settled legal position that entry in the revenue records does not confer title to a person whose name appears in the records-of-rights, which is maintained for revenue purpose and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Further, the provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 makes it more clear that orders passed under the provisions relating to mutation of revenue records would not act as a bar against any person from establishing his rights in the property by way of suit for declaration. For ready reference the provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted below:-
"39-Certain orders of revenue officers not to debar a suit. -No order passed by a Revenue Inspector under section 33, or by a Tahsildar under sub-section (1) of section 35 or by a Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) of section 38 or by a Commissioner under sub-section (4) of section 38 shall debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under section 144."
7. The fact of the present case does not attract the above mentioned exceptions as carved out by this Court under which this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution may entertain a writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings that are admittedly summary in nature.
8. It is well settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily the Writ Courts decline to entertain the writ petition as not entertainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings, unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court.
9. In view of the above, as no substantive rights of the parties have been decided or are likely to be decided in the mutation proceedings, no case for exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to get his rights/title in respect of the land in question be crystallised by competent Civil Court.
10. Accordingly, without interfering with the merits of the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Courts, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to get their rights/title in respect of the land in question, if necessary, adjudicated or declared by the competent court of jurisdiction. The order passed in the mutation proceedings would abide by the decision of the competent court, if any, and the said court would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding or observation made in the mutation orders or during mutation proceedings.
Order Date :- 22.12.2023
Arif
