Uttarakhand High Court
27 September vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 27 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:7223
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2638 of 2024
27 September, 2024
Umesh Chandra Tiwari
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others--
Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhishek Rana, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari , learned Standing Counsel for
the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition preferred under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against
the judgment and order dated 02.12.2023 (annexure-7 to
the writ petition), passed by the Board of Revenue as well
as the order dated 19.12.2022 (annexure-6 to the writ
petition), passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon, whereby
the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 05.08.2022
(annexure-5 to the writ petition) was set-aside.
3. Petitioner instituted proceedings under Section
34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short "the Act,
1901") against Hari Krishna on 24.07.2009 in the court
of Tehsildar Kausia Katauli, District Nainital. The
Tehsildar passed an order under Section 34 of the Act,
1901 and the land was mutated in the name of one
Padma Dutt. The petitioner then moved an application
under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 before the same
2024:UHC:7223
authority, which was allowed on 27.06.2011. The
application moved by Hari Krishna (respondent no.2
herein) under Section 201 of the Act, 1901 was dismissed
by Tehsildar on 05.08.2022. Against that order, the
Revision No.77/(2021-22) was preferred by Hari Krishna
before the Commissioner Kumaon Region, Nainital who
vide the order dated 19.12.2022 allowed the revision and
set-aside the order dated 05.08.2022, passed by the
Tehsildar. Against the said judgment passed by the
Commissioner, Revision No.05/2022-23 was preferred
before the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Nainital,
which vide the judgment and order dated 02.12.2023
dismissed the revision. Hence, this petition has been filed
by the petitioner.
4. It needs to be mentioned that this petition
actually challenges the mutation proceedings.
5. I have considered the submission advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
papers available on record. Before proceeding on merit,
Court is required to consider whether this Court should
exercise writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction. No
doubt, such jurisdiction can be exercised only when
there seems to be apparent jurisdictional or illegal error
in the impugned order taking away substantive right of
the party. It has to be kept in mind that order passed in
mutation proceedings is not the final order as it pertains
to the mutation proceedings and the party can get its title
declared from the competent Court.
6. The Allahabad High Court, in the case of "Smt.
Rani Devi Vs. Board of Revenue" reported in 1999 (90)
RD, page 633, has held that the writ petition arising out
of mutation proceedings is not maintainable. In the case
2024:UHC:7223
of "Ram Bharose Lal Vs. State of U.P.", reported in 1991
RD, page 72, the Allahabad High Court has held that the
mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1900, do not decide rights or title of the
parties, proceedings are just fiscal in nature, High Court
need not to interfere under Article 226/227. The remedy
can be availed in appropriate Court. In the case of "Kunj
Bihari Vs. Board of Revenue" reported in 2001 (92) RD,
page 2015:UHC:7262 11 166, the Allahabad High Court,
considering the Division Bench judgment of same Court
and relying upon some more judgments, has held that
the writ petition out of mutation proceedings is not
maintainable. Further, in the case of "Bindeshwari Vs.
Board of Revenue U.P. at. Lucknow. & others" reported in
2002 (93) RD 134, the Allahabad High Court held that
the mutation proceeding does not adjudicate the rights of
the parties and writ petition is not maintainable.
7. In the present case, the Chief Revenue
Commissioner as well as Commissioner was considering
the order passed in mutation proceedings. Therefore, this
Court is of view that remedy available before the
petitioner is somewhere else and writ petition is not
maintainable. It is always open for the petitioner to avail
appropriate remedy available to him.
8. In such view of the matter, the Court dismisses
the petition at the threshold subject to the aforesaid
liberty.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
27.09.2024
AK
AVNEET Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e245a1c11df9aa490cfd1403838bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9,
KAUR
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54688668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF35AB2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE, cn=AVNEET KAUR
Date: 2024.09.30 14:26:20 +05'30'
