Back
AJIT KUMAR
Sukhdev Kumar Chaubey – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Varanasi Mandal Varanasi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
In view of office report dated 19.4.2022 service upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is deemed sufficient.
2. Heard Udai Chandani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N.Raj, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
3. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 3) dated 18.1.2020, whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation holding that on the basis of decree of compromise or settlement made by the competent Court, mutation proceedings cannot be initiated.
4. Petitioner's appeal against the order dated 18.1.2020 has also come to be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Dy. Collector (Revenue), Tehsil - Sadar, Varanasi (Respondent No. 2) by order dated 20.12.2021 confirming the order of respondent No. 3.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once suit has been decreed under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and the said decree has remained un-appealed against and has thus attained finality, then the name of decree holder is require
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 proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
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 orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The mandatory reporting of acquisition of legal right and interest within 6 months, the jurisdiction of revenue courts in mutation proceedings, and the principle of estoppel were central legal points....
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
Point of Law : This is not a fit case where any of the exceptions stands attracted requiring interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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
