Ghanshyam And Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16935 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ghanshyam And Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration ... on 14 May, 2024

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36939
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4282 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam And Others
 
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration Ii), Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh,Vipul Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Kushwaha,Nitin Srivastava,Pankaj Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for private respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Utraula, District Balrampur as well as order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Devi Patan Division, Gonda wherein the application for mutation of the petitioners has been rejected while the application moved on behalf of the private respondents has been accepted.

3. The facts in brief of the case are that the disputed property in the present case pertains to Plot No. 370 situated at Village Nawva Koal Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, which was initially recorded in the name of Shri Bechan. It is stated that Shri Bechan had executed a Will Deed in favour of Lalta and Ram Pher, sons of Bachchu Lal the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. Shri Bechan was survived by his son Bhagwan Das whose wife was Smt. Anara Devi i.e., respondent no. 3. Smt. Anara Devi is said to have executed a gift deed on 08.09.2010 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, who have contested the said case before the Naib Tehsildar as well as in the suit proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

4. It has been submitted that in the proceedings for mutation, the authorities found favour with the claim of the private respondents considering the gift deed executed by Smt. Anara Devi in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 6. The grievance of the petitioners in the present proceedings is that their claim with regard to the said property on the basis of the Will Deed was never considered by the authorities, consequently, the orders are illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by Ram Pher and Lalta, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner against Bhagwan Das seeking a declaration in their favour on the basis of the Will Deed executed by Shri Bechan. The said suit proceedings are pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Utraula, District Balrampur.

5. While passing the impugned order in favour of the private respondents, the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Devi Patan Division, Gonda has taken note of the fact that the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Utraula, Balrampur and any order passed by him in summary proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, would be the subject to the outcome regular suit proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

6. The private respondents on the other hand, opposed the writ petition stating that mutation proceedings do not confer any right or title over any person are in fact summary proceedings. It is stated that that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Devi Patan Division, Gonda as he himself has recorded that the mutation proceedings in any case would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and any order passed by the competent court therein would prevail over the said order.

7. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The legal position with regard to the order passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has been duly considered by various co-ordinate Benches of this Court where it has been held that mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and in case any person is aggrieved by the same, he should approached the court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of this claim with regard to the dispute in question.

9. The observations of the co-ordinate Bench are hereunder:-

In the case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under;

"16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

18. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

10. In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212 Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under;

"37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.

38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:-

"2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission..."

11. Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;

"17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."

12. In a recent judgment in case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019, decided on 31.01.2019, Apex Court held that mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are extracted here as under;

"8. 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 it has 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 (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).

9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference."

13. In a recent judgment, Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021 has held as under :

"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 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, Aurangabad 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.

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 5 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."

14. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the dispute pertaining to the title is already pending before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act where the petitioners as well as private respondents are parties before the court concerned.

15. Accordingly, the outcome of the suit proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act shall be demonstrative of the title with regard to the present dispute.

16. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that certain orders passed with the suit proceedings were assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 2226 (MS) of 1999, which was allowed by means of order dated 06.01.2012 where the orders impugned therein dated 29.07.1999 and 31.07.1997 were set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court to adjudicate the dispute after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. It was further provided that till the matter is adjudicated on merit, parties are directed to maintain status quo. Accordingly, considering the fact that the suit proceedings are pending and hence the order of this Court dated 06.01.2012 is still in operation and there is no occasion for this Court to pass any separate orders in the present proceedings.

17. In light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Devi Patan Division, Gonda as well as order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Utraula, District Balrampur.

18. Undoubtedly the outcome of the suit proceedings shall govern the contentious issue pertains to the title of the present case, accordingly, subject to the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 14.5.2024

Virendra