Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Dubey And 5 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 28 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24179
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2380 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Dubey And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main relief (s) :-
"i. To issue order or direction U/A 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside, the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Devipatan Division, District-Gonda, in case No.521/2017 (Computerized Case No.C20170800521), "Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.", U/S 210 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and impugned order dated 17.07.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj, Gonda, in Case No.T2017083047052379, (Shiv Mohan v. Sandeep and Others) U/S 33/39 of The U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice. The certified copy of the impugned orders dated 26.11.2024 and 17.07.2017 are being annexed as Annexure No. 1 and Annexure No. 2 of this petition.
ii. To issue order or direction U/A 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioners over the land in question i.e. Gata No.361 Sa/0.2020 Hectare, situated at Village Chakseniya, Pargana- Paharapur, Tehsil - Colonelganj, District Gonda, in the interest of justice."
3. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the writ petition are as under :-
(i) The petitioners are the recorded tenure holders of the land in issue i.e. Gata No.361Sa/0.2020 Hectare, situated at Village Chakseniya, Pargana - Paharapur, Tehsil Colonelganj, District - Gonda.
(ii) The land in question was recorded as Nayi Parti in the new khatauni prepared under Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") in the name of the petitioners as bhumidhars with transferable rights.
(iii) The petitioners came into possession and ownership over the said land by way of sale deed executed by one Sri Vishramdhar (father of the Opp.Party No. 5 of this petition) in their favour.
(iv) Although the original sale deed has been lost/misplaced over the course of time, but the petitioners' names had been duly recorded in the revenue records.
(v) The petitioners are living in the house built over the land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 361 Sa/0.2020 Hectare, situated at Village Chakseniya, Pargana Paharapur, Tehsil Colonelganj, District - Gonda.
(vi) Petitioners are in peaceful, continuous, and undisputed possession of the land in dispute and there is a valid electricity connection in the aforesaid house situated over the land in question in the name of the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2.
(vii) On 13.05.2016, one Shiv Mohan (opp. party no. 4) filed a complaint before the District Magistrate/Collector, Gonda, during a Janta Darshan program, alleging that the entries in favor of the petitioners in the revenue records (Khatauni) in respect of the Gata No. 361 Sa/0.2020 Hectare, situated at Village Chakseniya, Pargana- Paharapur, Tehsil Colonelganj. District Gonda, were fraudulent and requested for correction of records.
(viii) On 13.05.2026, the District Magistrate/Collector, Gonda forwarded the aforesaid complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Colonelganj, District-Gonda to conduct an enquiry into the matter.
(ix) On 20.06.2016, the Lekhpal conducted an inquiry and asked the petitioner to furnish documentary proof of his title. However, the petitioner was never formally issued a notice under law and was not given a reasonable opportunity to put his case.
(x) The proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 for correction of entries in revenue records were undertaken.
(xi) It is to clarify that the revenue entries are for fiscal purposes and to identify the person in possession for collection of land revenue. The petitioners are in actual and settled possession of the land in question. Even though they could not produce documentary evidence of title but the long-standing possession itself is sufficient for rejection of the complaint dated 13.05.2016.
(xii) The Section 40 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 deals with settlement of disputes, which clearly says that all disputes related to entries shall be decided based on possession.
(xiii) The Lekhpal in the enquiry report dated 20.06.2016, exceeded his jurisdiction, therefore, the aforesaid enquiry report vitiates and have no legal value.
(xiv) On the aforesaid illegal enquiry report dated 20.06.2016, a case under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 was registered as Case No.T2017083047052379 (Shiv Mohan v. Sandeep and Others) before the learned court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj, Gonda.
(xv) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Colonelganj, Gonda without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to represent their case and without giving time to collect and produce the documentary evidence in their favor, as they are in the possession over the land in dispute based on a sale deed executed by one Vishramdhar, who died way back, proceeded to decide the case.
(xvi) The petitioners on 23.06.2017 moved a transfer application before the District Magistrate/Collector, District Gonda, to transfer the Case No. T2017083047052379 (Shiv Mohan v. Sandeep and Others) to another court. In which the District Magistrate/Collector, District Gonda, sought report from the S.D.M., Tehsil Colonelganj, District-Gonda.
(xvii) Subsequently the S.D.M., Tehsil Colonelganj, District-Gonda, passed the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 ex-party without holding any opportunity of hearing the petitioners.
(xiii) On 22.07.2017, petitioners assailed the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, before the learned Court of Additional Commissioner, Administration-Second, Devipatan Division, District-Gonda, in a revision registered as Case No.521/2017 (Computerized Case No. C20170800521), "Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P.", U/S 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(xix) On 03.10.2024, petitioners filed their written argument in the aforesaid revision, in which they have taken all the pleas in their favor.
(xx) The Additional Commissioner, dismissed the revision vide impugned revisional order dated 26.11.2024 in a cryptic and mechanical manner without application of mind. Therefore, the petitioners have assailed the said order by means of the present writ petition.
4. Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and writ petition against such proceedings is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has further relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 as well as in the case of Rahul Dwivedi and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 16 others, Writ-C No.14057 of 2021, decided on 24.08.2021 and decision of the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioners had contested the proceedings related to Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901"). It had been constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that proceedings under the Act of 1901 are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and in this regard it would be apt to refer Section 40-A of the Act of 1901 as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), which are extracted here under :-
(a) Section 40-A of the Act of 1901,
"40-A. Saving as to title suits. - No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding."
(b) Section 39 of Code of 2006,
"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 ¹[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."
6. In the case of Mathura (Supra), this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under :-
"5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.
6. The law is well-settled that:
(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided;
(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded;
(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;
(iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and
(v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.
3. 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. A coordinate Bench of this Court in 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."
8. In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 the 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..."
9. 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."
10. 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, the Hon'ble 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."
11. 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."
12. Taking note of aforesaid as also the observations made in the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, according to which the land in issue as per Form CH-45 prepared in terms of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") is Naveen Parti/नवीन परती, this Court is of the view that no interference of this Court in this regard is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to file declaratory suit claiming their right over the land in dispute.
Order Date :- 28.4.2025
ML/-
