Allahabad High Court
Amarjeet @ Arjundas vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35331
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3799 of 2024
Petitioner :- Amarjeet @ Arjundas
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Karan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. In the light of proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the mutation proceedings in Case No. T202204230101731 - Chandan Kumar Pandey and Others Vs. Smt. Kailaspati, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent no. 2 - Naib Tehsildar (Nagar), Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the property existing over Gata No. 193M, 241 Ka, situated at Village - Ranopali (B.N.P.), Pargana - Haweli Awadh, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Ayodhya, is registered in the name of Shri Thakur Vijai Raghoji Bhagwan Birajman Temple Ranopali Ayodhya which is Devattar property and respondent no. 5 Rajveer Singh @ Rajdeo Das Chela Banwari Das who was Sarwarhkar of the said temple, executed a registered Majjarnama on 14.07.1986, in favour of the respondent no. 6. Subsequently, respondent no. 6 executed a registered Mahajjarnama on 26.07.2016 in favour of petitioner in respect of the same property as Sarwarhkar.
5. The dispute in the present case is with regard to mutation proceedings where an application was given by respondent no. 3 who in turn has purchased the same property from respondent no. 4 by means of sale deed dated 10.02.2022. The petitioner on the basis of Mahajjarnama dated 26.07.2016 has also filed objections in the same proceedings and the proceedings are still pending before the Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Ayodhya.
6. In the meanwhile, it seems that the petitioner has also filed Civil Suit No. 1362 of 2022 - Shri Thakur Vijai Raghoji Maharaj Vs. Kailashpati and Others, which is pending in the competent Court at Faizabad.
7. Considering the fact that for the same cause of action a civil suit is pending, the present writ petition was filed with prayer to stay/quash the proceedings of the mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the disputed questions of fact cannot be considered or decided in mutation proceedings and the grievance if any, of the parties can be redressed before the competent civil Court where appropriate declaration can be granted after looking into the evidence and all other relevant facts.
9. The consistent view taken by the this Court is that writ petition in matters arising out of disputes where decision has been made in a summary manner, a writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India would not be maintainable inasmuch as in case the petitioner claim his tilted then appropriate court to decide the matter would be the ordinary civil courts. It has also been held that mere mutation or other summary proceedings like 67 of U.P. Revenue Code cannot adequately declare the title of any person and the same has to be done by the civil courts.
10. It has been held in catena of decisions by this Court that proceedings under U.P. L.R. Act / U.P. Revenue Code are summary in nature and they do not confer any title finally as such writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings is not maintainable.
11. In the case of Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & Ors. [1996 (6) SCC], Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para-7 as under:
"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. Similar view has been taken in para-9 of the judgment in the case of Suraj Bhan & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 186]. Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"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. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble O.H. Mootham, Chief Justice and Hon'ble M.L. Chaturvedi, JJ. in the case of Jaipal Minor vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad [(1956) ALJ has held that no interference is to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the orders passed by Board of Revenue. Relevant extract of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"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, and his right to establish his title thereto is expressly reserved by Section 40 (3) of the Act. The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act."
14. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J. in the case of Madhav Pandey & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. [2002 (20) LCD 1439]. Relevant extracts of paras- 24 & 30 of the judgment is being reproduced below:
"24. .........Furthermore, the present writ petition arises out of the summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and the writ petition is not entertained on the principle that in summary proceedings title of the parties are not decided and the summary proceedings are always subject to adjudication of title by the competent court.
30. .........The present proceedings arise out of the mutation proceedings which is summary proceeding and the writ petitions against the summary proceedings are not entertained under Article 226 of Constitution of India."
15. In the present case it is noticed that the petitioner has himself instituted suit proceedings seeking declaration for his title over the disputed property.
16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the suit proceedings his rights may be protected with regard to possession. In this regard it is provided that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court where the suit proceedings are pending and move appropriate application for interim direction to protect his possession. It is provided that in case any such application is made by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
17. Considering the fact that suit proceedings are already pending with regard to same subject matter, for which the proceedings are also pending before the Naib Tehsildar, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, undisputedly order of Civil Court would prevail over the directions of Naib Tehsildar.
18. Subject to aforesaid observations made by this Court, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
