31 October vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5152 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

31 October vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                        2025:UHC:9616
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3036 of 2025
                        31 October, 2025
Pawan Kumar and Another                              --Petitioners
                     Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Lokendra Dobhal and Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned
      counsel for the petitioners.
      Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr.
      Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, learned Standing Counsel and
      Mr. Bhupendra Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the
      State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.08.2023 in Revenue Revision No.21 of 2022-2023 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan Kumar and Another, passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun (Annexure No.9) and the judgment and order dated 26.08.2025 passed by Board of Revenue, Dehradun, in Revenue Revision No.4/2023-2024 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Parvati Devi and Another (Annexure No.11) and further prayed to restore the judgment and order dated 11.01.2013 passed by learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi in Suit No.12/12-13 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi (Annexure No.5).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the ancestors of the petitioners namely Baniyaram, Naindutt were recorded Bhoomidhar of Khata Khatuni No.110, situated at Village Saura Patti, Nald Kathud, Tehsil Bhadwari, District Uttarkashi and their name were recorded as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights in revenue records

2025:UHC:9616 category No.1(Ka) of the disputed land. The pedigree of the family members of petitioners is also placed at Para 3 of the writ petition. In year 1987-88, Mahandand-father of petitioners and Satyanand-father of respondent No.2 met with sad demise and name of respondent No.2 was entered in place of her father in revenue records on the basis of succession and the name of respondent No.2 was wrongly entered in the property of Smt. Senduri Devi as 1/2 share, who was wife of Late Naindutt having no child. When this fact came to the knowledge of petitioners that the name of father of respondent No.2 was wrongly entered in the property of Smt. Senduri Devi and later on, name of respondent No.2 was also recorded in place of her father in revenue records, the petitioners moved an application before the learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act to correct the revenue records and mutated their name in place of Smt. Senduri Devi on the basis of will dated 01.09.1983. The said application was registered as a Mutation Case No.1 of 2008-2009 Pawan Kumar and another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi, and issued notices to respondent No.2 to file objection. Respondent No.2 filed her objection and specially stated that the will was not implemented in the life time of father of petitioners, therefore, the said will is void-ab-initio and the application is liable to be rejected.

3. On 20.04.2009, learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi allowed the application of the petitioners and directed to mutate their name in place of respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2009, respondent No.2 preferred an Appeal before the learned Assistant Collector, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi in Revenue Appeal No.19/2008-2009 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan

2025:UHC:9616 Kumar and Another, which was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2010 setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.04.2009 and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. After remand, the suit was registered as Suit No.12/12-13 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi, before the learned Tehsildar, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi, which was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2013 under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act and the objection filed by respondent No.2 was rejected. Thereafter, respondent No.2 preferred a Revenue Appeal No.24/2012-13/13/14-15 Smt. Parvati Devi Vs. Pawan Kumar and Another, under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act, challenging the order dated 11.01.2013. The said appeal was dismissed by learned assistant Collector, Bhatwari, Uttarkashi vide order dated 01.05.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2017, respondent No.2 filed a Revenue Revision No.21/2022-2023 before the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Camp, Dehradun, which was allowed vide order dated 25.08.2023.

4. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2023, filed Revenue Revision No.4/2023- 2024 Pawan Kumar and Another Vs. Parvati Devi and Another, before the learned Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2025 and the matter was remanded. Thus, petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned orders dated 25.08.2023 and 26.08.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Board of Revenue has rejected the revision of the petitioners without considering the legal aspect and without considering the fact and circumstances of the

2025:UHC:9616 case. He further submits that the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Board of Revenue have exceeded their jurisdiction. The role of revenue authorities under the Land Revenue Act (Specifically Section 34/35) is summary in nature. Their function is to maintain revenue records for fiscal purposes, not to adjudicate on complex questions of title. The validity of a Will can only be challenged and decided by a competent civil court. As the will has not been set aside or declared void by any Civil Court, the revenue authorities were bound to act upon it. He also submits that the learned Tehsildar's initial order to mutate based on the Will was correct in law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that there is no specific limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 for seeking mutation of property based on a Will. The right to property is a constitutional right and a mere procedural delay, especially when explained by a lack of legal knowledge, cannot extinguish this right. He further contends that it is a settled principle of law, reiterated in numerous judgments like Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D)Th. LR Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company, that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title to the property. Title is derived from the Will. The initial incorrect entry was a procedural lapse and does not grant any legal title to Satyanand or his legal heirs (respondent No.2). The petitioners are merely seeking a correction of this procedural error to reflect the true ownership. He also contends that the petitioners are still in possession over the land in-question and cultivating the land in-question as Bhoomidhar.

2025:UHC:9616

7. Learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No.1448 of 2024 Ashutosh Sharma and Another Vs. Madhav Samarpan Samiti, whereby, the said writ petition was dismissed. He also relied on few judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court viz. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma V. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 58 and Faqruddin V. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it does not confer any title over the property and this is only for the fiscal purposes. My view is further fortified by a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan (Supra), wherein, it is observed and held 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.

9. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Dei and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others, decided on 21.11.2020 in WPMS No.73 of 2013 has held that it is a settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature

2025:UHC:9616 and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. The relevant paras are extracted herein as below:-

"2. It is the settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. Rather to the contrary, the Law contemplates that any entries which are made as a consequences of the orders passed under the proceedings which are provided under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, would only be having a fiscal affect because it only determines the entitlement of the State and liability of a person/revenue holder, to ensure the remittance of the Land Revenue, payable towards the land which was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Some of the judgments, the reference of which has been made by the counsel for the respondents in relation to the aforesaid subject, have been reported in 2004 (97) RD 696, Smt. Manorma Devi and others vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others; 2002 (93) RD 510, Smt. Gyan Mati Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Basti Division and others; 1996 (6) SCC 223, Sawarni (Smt) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) and others as well as 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3038, Smt. Rani Devi vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others.

3. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it has been consistently held by the Courts, that, any adjudication which is made in a mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 would always be a subject to the provisions contained under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act, i.e. if any person is aggrieved against the determination made or on a denial made to record, his name in the Revenue records, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the effected person will have had to resort the proceedings of instituting the regular suit for deciding their rights."

10. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in-limine. However, any observations as made above, will not come on the way of the petitioners if they approach a competent Court of law for adjudication of their rights over the property in question.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 31.10.2025 PN