Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Kalawati – Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Revenue and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 295 of 2022
Decided On : 05-04-2022
U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 34 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Seeking to raise a challenge to order - Petition has been filed seeking to raise a challenge to order - An objection has been taken by counsel appearing for respondents by pointing out that orders which are sought to be challenged have been passed in mutation proceedings and aforesaid proceedings being summary in nature which do not decide rights of parties present writ petition seeking to challenge same would not be entertainable - Counsel for petitioner though not disputing aforesaid legal proposition that as per consistent view taken by this Court a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings is not entertainable seeks to contend that there are certain exceptions to general rule and it cannot be held that in all situations a writ petition seeking to challenge orders in mutation proceedings would not be entertainable - Section 39 of the Code has already been taken note of wherein it is provided in unequivocal terms that order passed under Section 35 would not debar any person from establishing his rights to the land by means of a suit under Section 144 –Para 44.
Finding of the Court: At this stage counsel for petitioner seeks to urge that findings returned in mutation proceedings may prejudice petitioner's case in a suit pertaining to claim of title - Aforesaid apprehension is wholly without basis since findings returned by mutation courts in summary proceedings are for limited purpose of correction of revenue records and do not have any presumptive value on a question of title which is required to be adjudicated by court of competent jurisdiction without being influenced by any finding returned in mutation proceedings - In this regard provision contained Section 39 of Code has already been taken note of wherein it is provided in unequivocal terms that order passed under Section 35 would not debar any person from establishing his rights to land by means of a suit.
Result: Petition stands Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri. Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri. J.P.N. Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri. Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 7.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking to raise a challenge to the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1-Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow dismissing the Revision No. REV/1789/2019/Banda (Computerized Case No. R20190711001789, Smt. Kalawati vs. Pramod Singh), the earlier order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 Up-Ziladhikari, Banda in Appeal No. T2018017110104138 (Smt. Kalawati vs. Smt. Shiv Devi) and also the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3-Naib Tehsildar Banda, in Case No. 00411/2018 (Computerized Case No. T201807110100411, Report Lekhpal vs. Gyan Singh) under Section 35 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 [the Code 2006] rejecting the objection dated 13.02.2017 filed by the petitioner and allowing mutation application dated 02.01.2017 filed by Smt. Shiv Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents nos. 4 to 7 in the present petition.
3. An objection has been taken by the counsel appearing for the respondents by pointing out that the orders which are sought to be challenged have been passed in mutation proceedings and the aforesaid proceedings being summary in nature which do not decide the rights of the parties, the present writ petition seeking to challenge the same would not be entertainable.
4. Counsel for the petitioner though not disputing the aforesaid legal proposition that as per the consistent view taken by this Court, a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings is not entertainable, seeks to contend that there are certain exceptions to the general rule and it cannot be held that in all situations a writ petition seeking to challenge orders in mutation proceedings would not be entertainable.
5. To support his contention, reliance is sought to be placed on decisions of this Court in Lal Bachan vs. Board of Revenue, Lucknow and Others, 2002 (93) RD 6 and Smt. Hadisul Nisha vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad and Others, 2021 (152) RD 426.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State respondents and also the counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent nos. 4 to 7 have contended that mutation proceedings being of a summary nature do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit and it is for the said reason that the consistent view taken by the courts is that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Others, 2020 (146) RD 545, Awadhesh Singh vs. Additional Commissioner and Others, 2017 (9) ADJ 378 and also a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) though LRs. vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and Others, (2019) 3 SCC 191.
7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings.
8. In the case of Jaipal vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and Others, 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 ma
The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and existence of an alternate remedy would not divest the High Court of its powers under ....
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title or extinguish rights. The only way to establish title is through a regular suit for declaration.
Mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not confer title; aggrieved parties must seek resolution in civil courts.
Mutation entries do not impact the title of the parties, and orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings.
Mutation entries do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes; disputes over title must be resolved in civil court.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation proceedings are administrative in nature and do not determine the rights or interest of the parties. The right or title in the proper....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
