Allahabad High Court
Sumitra Devi And Another vs Board Of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Chairman ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:74676
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - B No. - 1105 of 2025
Sumitra Devi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Board Of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Durgendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Raj Karan Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Short counter affidavit / preliminary objection filed on behalf of apposite party nos. 4 and 5 along with Vakalatnma filed by Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla on their behalf, is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Durgendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for respondents no. 4 and 5.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, passed by opposite party no.1 in Revision No. 2980/2024 Computerized Case No. R20240412002980 Smt. Shanti Devi @ Munni Devi Vs. Smt. Jamuna Devi and another under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice.
4. It has been submitted by learned cousnel for the petitioners that the dispute in the present case pertains to a division of property, which was recorded in the name of Ram Adhar, who was recorded tenure holder of land situated at Khata No. 00010, Gata No. 52 and 61 and Khata No. 76 and 89, situated in Village Lalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki.
5. It has been submitted that Ram Adhar had died some time in the year 2004 and had two children, namely, Shanti Devi and Kallu Ram. It has further been stated that Kallu Ram had died some time in the year 2004-05 and was survived by his widow Sumitra Devi (petitioner no.1). It has further been stated that after the death of Ram Adhar on 5.3.2018 the name of Smuitra Devi came to be recorded int he revenue records in P.A. 11. Shanti Devi i.e. opposite party no.4 had filed the objections and also prayed for mutation of half of the property in her name being the daughter of Ram Adhar.
6. The Tehsildar by means of the order dated 27.12.2023 decided the said dispute and passed an order for half share in favour of Shanti Devi and half share in favour of Sumit Devi. It has been submitted that Sumitra Devi has executed a Hiba Nama (gift deed) of the entire property which was devolved upon her to Jamuna Devi i.e. petitioner no.2.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2023 petitioner no.2 had filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional magistrate, Fatehpur, District Barabanki. The appellate court re-appreciated the entire evidence and considered the rival contentions but was of the view that Shanti Devi has not adduced any material or document to demonstrate that she was the daughter of Ram Adhar and secondly he found that there was no evidence of Shanti Devi having separated from her husband and was living with recorded tenure holder Ram Adhar nor is there any evidence that Sumitra Devi or Shanti Devi have obtained the decree of divorce and these points have not been examined by the trial court and accordingly allowed the appeal remanding the matter back to the trial court for adjudication afresh.
8. Assailing the order dated 12.9.2024 passed by the S.D.M. Fatehpur, District Barabanki that Shanti Devi preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by means of order dated 29.10.2024 and assailing the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
9. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the appellate court is illegal, arbitrary and in as much as Shanti Devi being married daughter of recorded tenure holder of Ram Adhar, does not have any right or interest in the agricultural property and this aspect of the matter was rightly remitted by the appellate court to the trial court for adjudication afresh.
10. I further find that similar arguments are forthcoming from the respondents with regard to the status of the petitioners who has been alleged to have married Ramharesh h/o Jamuna Devi and no adequate material order evidence is available on record.
11. The dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of the property in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which are summary proceedings to determine as to the person who is liable to pay land revenue to the authorities. The law in this regard is also clear in as much as any order passed under Section 34 does not confer right, interest or title in the disputed land. It is consistent view of this Court that against the proceedings under Section 34, no writ petition is maintainable and the remedy, if any, in such a dispute where any person wants to assert his right interest or title, it is for the party to obtain an appropriate decree or declaration from the court of civil jurisdiction.
12. I further find that there is highly disputed question between the parties pertaining the status of each other and that issue shall be decided only by adducing adequate evidence before the civil court. I further find that the appellate court has correctly noticed the stage of dispute and also that like of evidence adduced by the parties in the present case.
13. 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.."
14. The question with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings fell for consideration in the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors., 2002 (93) RD 6, and it was held that the High Court does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that mutation proceedings are only summarily drawn on the basis of possession and the parties have a right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit. The observations made in the judgment are extracted below:-
"11. This Court has consistently taken the view as is apparent from the decisions of this Court referred above that writ petition challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings are not to be entertained. To my mind, apart from there being remedy of getting the title adjudicated in regular suit, there is one more reason for not entertaining such writ petition. The orders passed under Section 34 of the Act are only based on possession which do not determine the title of the parties. Even if this Court entertains the writ petition and decides the writ petition on merits, the orders passed in mutation proceedings will remain orders in summary proceedings and the orders passed in the proceedings will not finally determine the title of the parties."
15. Reiterating a similar view in the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 20025 (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."
16. 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, 2012 (1) ADJ 792.
17. 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., 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."
18. 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 Singh11 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka, (2009) 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)."
19. 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.''
20. 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...''
21. 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 Bangalore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, and H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (19896) 11 SCC 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.''
22. 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..."
23. 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..."
24. 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 (146) RD 545 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.
25. 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. Tajuddin14, 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, 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."
26. 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. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :-
(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) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries;
(v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and
(vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.
18. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file suit before competent court of jurisdiction along with an application for interim stay which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
(Alok Mathur,J.)
November 18, 2025
Muk
