Shiv Kumari Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16240 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

					Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112844
 

 
Court No.52
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15704 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumari Devi And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bashisth Narain Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Mani Upadhyay
 

 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901. The petitioner has lost the claim for mutation from three courts.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised various submissions on merits of the case, however, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the caveator argued that writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings is not maintainable unless it falls in any exceptional clause as explained by this Court in Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578.

3. Learned counsel for the caveator has vehemently argued that there was a registered Adoption Deed dated 01.11.1980 which has not been cancelled by any of the court of competent jurisdiction and name of the contesting respondent was already mutated on the basis of the same, however, on account of certain plots being erroneously chak-out, the proceedings have been initiated and the same have given rise to the institution of the present writ petition.

4. Be that as it may, the question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings. In the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors., AIR 1957 ALL 205, notice was taken of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with the orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue was whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:-

"3. ...It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights.

That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question..."

5. Reiterating a similar view in the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 2002 (1) AWC 498, it was stated that mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of parties and orders passed in the said proceedings are always subject to adjudication by the competent Court and therefore a writ petition against an order in mutation proceedings would not be entertainable. It was observed as follows:-

"11. ...The present writ petition arising out of the summary proceeding of mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in the mutation are always subject to adjudication by the competent Court."

6. The settled legal position that orders of mutation are passed on the basis of possession and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided, ordinarily a writ petition would not be entertainable against such orders unless the same are found to be wholly without jurisdiction or have the effect of rendering findings which are contrary to title already decided by a competent court, was reiterated in the case of Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021 (1) ADJ 792.

36. Taking note of the nature and scope of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature and also the fact that orders in such proceedings are passed on the basis of possession of the parties and no substantive rights are decided, this Court in Buddh Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2012 (5) ADJ 266, restated the principle that ordinarily a writ petition in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings is not maintainable. It was observed as follows:-

"7. It is equally 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 a writ petition is not maintainable 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. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent Court."

7. The proposition that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title over land nor such entries have any presumptive value on title has been restated in a recent decision in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 191, placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka (209) 5 SCC 591. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-

"6. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka)."

8. Reference may also be had to the judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12, wherein it was held that the revenue authorities cannot decide questions of title and that mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The observations made in this regard are as follows:-

''45. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense... It is well-settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title.''

9. A similar observation was made in Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736 wherein it was held as follows:-

''19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable...''

10. In Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.(2014) 2 SCC 269, the principle that entries in revenue records do not confer any title was reiterated and referring to the previous decisions in Corpn. Of the City of Banglore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand (1993) 4 SCC 349 and H.P. v. Keshav Ram (1996) 11SCC 257, it was stated thus :-

"21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corpn. Of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah this Court held that: (SCC p. 615, para 5)

''5. ...It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law.''

In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand this Court has held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2) '

'2. ...that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.

'' In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram this Court held that: (SCC p. 259, para 5)

"'5. ...an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.''

11. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) and others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 and it was observed that the mutation of name in the revenue records does not have the effect of creating or extinguishing the title nor has any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person concerned to pay land revenue. It was stated thus :-

"7...Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question..."

12. The principle that an entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and title to the property can only be decided by a competent Civil Court was reiterated in the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others (2007) 6 SCC 186 and it was stated as follows :-

"9...It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court..."

13. The legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 (DB) and Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others, 2020 (3) ADJ 104 and it was restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

14. The settled legal position that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and that such entries are only for "fiscal purpose" and no ownership is conferred on the basis thereof and further that the question of title of a property can only be decided by a competent Civil Court has again been restated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802; wherein after referring to the previous authorities on the point in Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma Vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58, Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of J & K, (2008) 9 SCC 368, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689, T Ravi Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342, Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import & Export Co.(2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhar Vs. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 and Ajit Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh (2019) 13 SCC 70, it was observed thus :-

"8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co. (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."

15. The aforesaid proposition of law has recently been reiterated by this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 578. Similar view has been taken in another recent decision of this Court in the case of Alladin v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 41.

16. From the perusal of record, I do not find that any error has been committed by the three courts in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. However, at the same time, it is also to be noticed that as per Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, the orders passed by the mutation courts are subject to result of regular proceedings.

17. In view of the above, the interference in the orders impugned is declined. The orders impugned are upheld with the observation that the same shall remain subject to regular proceedings and their result.

18. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off.

Order Date :- 23.5.2023

Jyotsana