Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.
Meera Devi And Another – Appellant
Versus
The Board Of Revenue Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ B No.2800 of 2023
Decided on : 29-08-2023
Mutation Proceedings - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 219 - Summary: [MUTATION PROCEEDINGS] - [U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT, 1901, SECTION 219] - The court discussed the legality of a sale deed, the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts in mutation proceedings, and the principles of natural justice. The Board of Revenue's finding on the validity of the sale deed and its remand order were deemed unwarranted and beyond its jurisdiction. The order setting aside the previous order was affirmed, but the remand was restricted from being influenced by the Board of Revenue's findings on the sale deed's legality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased land and applied for mutation. The mutation order was recalled, and subsequent appeals were made. The Sub Divisional Officer declined to entertain the appeals. The matter was remitted to the lower court, which rejected the private respondents' claim and ordered mutation. A Revision was filed challenging the mutation order, leading to the impugned judgment and order by the Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the validity of the sale deed in a summary proceeding. The order setting aside the previous order was affirmed, but the remand was restricted from being influenced by the Board of Revenue's findings on the sale deed's legality. The court overruled objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts in mutation proceedings, the legality of the sale deed, and the maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered sale deed in summary proceedings. It also emphasized the exceptions under which a Writ petition may be entertained against orders passed in mutation proceedings, and the restrictions on remand orders.
Final Decision: The order setting aside the previous order was affirmed, but the remand was restricted from being influenced by the Board of Revenue's findings on the sale deed's legality. The court partly allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Amit Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Nitya Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 & 3.
2. By means of the instant writ petition field under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (respondent no.1) whereby the Revision bearing Case No. 775 of 2022 (Siddhant Gupta versus Smt. Meera Devi) under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, filed by the respondent no.2 namely Siddhant Gupta has been allowed.
3. The Board of Revenue vide the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 allowed the aforesaid revision by setting aside the mutation order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Khadda, Kushinagar and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar concerned with a direction to decide the case afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned ‘in the light of the findings recorded’ by it in the impugned order dated 05.06.2023.
4. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the petitioners purchased the disputed land under a registered sale-deed dated 11.06.2009. The said sale deed was jointly executed by Anuj Gupta son of late Srinath Gupta and Smt. Neelam Devi widow of late Srinath Gupta (respondent no.3) in her personal capacity as well as the mother and natural guardian of her minor son namely Siddhant (respondent no.2). After, purchase of the land in question through the aforesaid registered sale deed, the petitioners moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, 1901 before the Naib Tehsildar for mutation in respect of the said land.
5. The Naib-Tehsildar, Padrauna, District Kushinagar vide order dated 16.12.2009 allowed the aforesaid mutation application and issued direction to the concerned officials to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records over the land in question.
6. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar, the respondent no.3 namely Smt. Neelam Gupta, moved a restoration application on 17.12.2009 which was allowed on the same day and the mutation order dated 16.12.2009 was recalled.
7. From the perusal of the record as is available before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner no.1 namely Meera Devi preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, assailing the aforesaid restoration order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Naib-Tehsildar. On the other hand, one Shashank son of Srinath also preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer challenging the mutation order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned.
8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Padrauna heard both the aforesaid appeals together on 08.08.2012 and finally decided both the aforesaid appeals by a common judgment and order dated 08.08.2012.
9. By means of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.08.2012, the Sub Divisional Officer declined to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner no.1 namely Meera Devi on the ground that the order dated 17.12.2009 challenged in the said appeal is an interlocutory order by means of which the restoration application has been allowed and as such, no appeal is maintainable against the same. Further, the Sub Divisional Officer vide the same order dated 08.08.2012 decided not to entertain the appeal filed by above-mentioned Shashank against the order dated 16.12.2009 on the ground that the same had already been recalled by means of the restoration order dated 17.12.2009, as such, no appeal is entertainable against a nonexistent order.
10. The Appellate Court, however, vide the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.08.2012 partly allowed the appeal filed by Shashank son of Srinath by remitting the matter to the lower court with a direction to decide the same on me
Revenue courts cannot adjudicate the legality and validity of a registered sale deed in summary proceedings, and there are exceptions under which a Writ petition may be entertained against orders pas....
Mutation proceedings do not confer title, and substantive rights must be established in a competent civil court.
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
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 under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
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 ....
Civil Law - Revenue Board - Jurisdiction - It is definitely within domain of revenue authorities to take a final decision on issue as to whether lands in question are Government lands and if so, whet....
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
