Allahabad High Court
Jagrana vs Chairman, Board Of Revenue,U.P. ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 851 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jagrana
Respondent :- Chairman, Board Of Revenue,U.P. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhoopal Singh,Aaditya Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2022, passed by the opposite party no.1 i.e. Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in case no. REV/1114/2016, computerized case no.R2016041200114, under section-219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (referred in short as "U.P.L.R. Act" for brevity), Jagrana Vs. Sarvjeet & others), the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2016, passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur, Barabanki in appeal no.32(15-16), computerized case no.T2016412031899, under section-210 of the U.P.L.R. Act, Smt. Jagrana Vs. Sarvjeet & others and the impugned judgment and order dated 15.06.2015, passed by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Tehsildar, Fatehpur, Barabanki in case no.1213/338. T19940412036, under section-34/35 of the U.P.L.R. Act, Smt. Jagrana Vs. Ram Lal, contained as Annexure No.1 to 3 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 i.e. Tehsildar, Fatehpur, District Barabanki to decide the mutation case, which filed by the petitioner a fresh after considering the documentary evidence on the merits."
The petitioner claims herself to be the daughter of late Ram Lal. The petitioner preferred an application dated 28.07.1994 for mutation of her name in the revenue records under Section 34/35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1901"). It was preferred on the basis of an un-registered will-deed dated 26.01.1978. It is to be noted that Ram Lal expired in the year 1975 and the name of private respondents were recorded on 15.05.1976 as per the entry of P.A. 11. Thus, the application for mutation was preferred after about 16 years.
The aforesaid claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3/Tehsildar, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki on 15.06.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal No. 32/2015-16, computerized case No. T2016412031899 (Smt. Jagrana Vs. Sarvjeet & others), under Section 210 of U.P. Z.A.&L.R. Act, which was also rejected/dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2015.
Thereafter, being aggrieved by the orders dated 15.06.2015 and 15.06.2015, the petitioner preferred a revision No. REV/1114/2016, computerized case No. R2016041200114 (Jagrana Vs. Sarvjeet & others), under Section 219 of the Act of 1901, which was also rejected vide order dated 03.10.2022.
From a perusal of the orders dated 15.06.2015, 15.06.2015 and 03.10.2022, it transpires that the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities are concurrent findings. It is also settled principle of law that the proceedings of mutation are summary in nature and the writ petitions related to the same would not be maintainable and in such matters proper course would be to file a suit for declaration. {See: The order dated 05.04.2022 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 295 of 2022 (Smt. Kalawati v. The Board Of Revenue And 6 Others)}.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the findings returned in the mutation proceedings may prejudice the petitioner's case in a suit pertaining to claim of title. The aforesaid apprehension is wholly without basis since findings returned by mutation courts in summary proceedings are for the limited purpose of correction of revenue records and do not have any presumptive value on a question of title which is required to be adjudicated by the court of competent jurisdiction without being influenced by any finding returned in mutation proceedings. In this regard the provision contained under Section 39 of the Code has already been taken note of wherein it is provided in unequivocal terms that order passed under Section 35 would not debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under Section 144.
Having regard to the aforesaid this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present case.
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
Order Date :- 23.1.2023
Arun/-
