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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking to raise a challenge to the orders dated 29.03.2014, 22.07.2013 and 25.06.2010 passed by respondent No.1, 2 & 3 namely Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad, Parganadhikari Najibabad District Bijnor and Tehsildar, Najibabad District Bijnor respectfully. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner for mutation was rejected.

3. The case set up by the petitioner was based on the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.09.1973 and a non-registered Family Settlement dated 21.09.1986. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner stated that he is entitled for mutation of his name in the Revenue Records. On the other hand, the case set up by the respondent No.4 is on the basis of Registered Will Deed dated 18.01.2005 executed by Sri Ved Prakash Goyal/husband of the respondent No.4. The claim set up by the petitioner was rejected by all the courts below on the ground that the Family Settlement dated 21.09.1986 is an unregistered documents and the same will not prevail over the Registered Will Deed dated 18.01.2005.

4. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 that no writ petition lies against summary proceedings and in the present case mutation proceedings had been contested by the petitioner till the stage of revision and no writ petition lies against the order of revisional authority and the only relief can be claimed by filing a regular suit for declaration of title. It is further argued that as the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, petitioner has remedy of filing a declaratory suit for declaring his right under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the mutation proceedings filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act till the stage of revision. It had been a constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and the proceedings are only for fiscal purpose to enable the State to collect revenue from the person whose name is on record. The mutation proceedings does not confer upon any right or title on the person whose name is entered in the revenue records.

6. In Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 35 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