Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Zakir Hasan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ-B No. -67947 of 2006
Decided On : 01-02-2024
Mutation - Land Dispute - U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 210, 219 - U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Act 1956, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act 1950, Land Reforms Act 1950 - The court discussed the mutation proceedings, civil suits, and the legal provisions under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition Act 1956, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act 1950, and Land Reforms Act 1950. It highlighted the finality of the mutation order in favor of the petitioners, the lack of challenge to the petitioners' mutation order, and the findings of the civil court and higher courts regarding the disputed property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to be recorded as the legal heirs of their deceased father in a land mutation proceeding. The respondent initiated a separate mutation proceeding based on an alleged sale deed. The civil court decreed in favor of the petitioners, and the higher courts upheld the decision. The petitioners challenged the mutation orders in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation order in favor of the petitioners had attained finality, and the civil court's decision regarding the disputed property was upheld by higher courts. The court set aside the impugned orders and affirmed the mutation order in favor of the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the mutation orders, the effect of the civil court's decision on the disputed property, and the applicability of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and related acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The finality of the mutation order in favor of the petitioners, the lack of challenge to the petitioners' mutation order, and the findings of the civil court and higher courts regarding the disputed property influenced the court's decision to set aside the impugned orders and affirm the mutation order in favor of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the mutation order dated 27.8.1990 in favor of the petitioners was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar holding the brief of Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-Nagar Palika Parishad now Nagar Nigam Saharanpur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners' father Tahir Hasan was the Zamindar of the plot situated in Khewat No.6/1 and 6/2 Mahalgar Daiyan, Village-Khan Alampura, Pergana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur. The aforementioned plots were situated initially under Nagar Palika Parisahd Saharanpur now Nagar Nigam Saharanpur. In the khatauni of 1371 fasli (1963-64) the plots were recorded as khudcast of petitioners' father Tahir Hasan and entry continued till the death of Tahir Hasan which took place on 15.12.1977. Petitioners being son of Tahir Hasan (recorded tenure holder) applied for mutation and Tehsildar passed an order for mutation on 19.9.1981 for recording the names of petitioners in the place of deceased Tahir Hasan. Against the order of mutation dated 19.9.1981 Nagar Palika Parisahd Saharanpur filed a restoration application which was allowed on 13.6.1984 and mutation case was restored on 13.6.1984 for fresh adjudication on merit. Tehsildar again heard the matter in presence of Nagar Palika who set up his case on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed on 7.5.1963 in favour of Nagar Palika by Tahir Hasan and vide detailed order dated 27.8.1990 directed that petitioners are entitled to be recorded in the place of their father Tahir Hasan as petitioners are in possession over the plots in dispute and Nagar Palika Parisahd has not taken any steps for recording his name on the basis of sale deed executed long back in the year 1963. Appeal filed by Nagar Palika Parisahd under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was dismissed on 14.8.1991 by Sub Divisional Officer. Revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by Nagar Palika Parisahd was dismissed on 6.2.1992 by Additional Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut. Nagar Palika Parisahd applied for fresh mutation of his name in the year 1991 after 29 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed by Tahir Hasan on 7.5.1963 which was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 22.12.1992 in arbitrary manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as without setting aside the earlier mutation order passed in favour of petitioners as earlier mutation order passed in favour of petitioners had attained finality. Petitioners applied for restoration against the order dated 22.12.1992 which was set aside on 17.3.1993 and the case was restored for fresh decision. Tehsildar vide subsequent order dated 7.7.1993 again allowed the application of Nagar Palika Parisahd filed on 7.7.1993 and restored the earlier exparte mutation order dated 22.12.1992. Petitioners challenged the order dated 7.7.1993 through revision before Commissioner which was dismissed on 30.9.1993 by Additional Commissioner. A revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed on behalf of petitioners before Board of Revenue which was entertained on 20.10.1993 and interim was also granted. Board of Revenue finally heard the revision filed by petitioners and dismissed the same vide order dated 30.10.2006, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2006, 30.9.1993 and 7.7.1993.
3. This court entertained the matter on 20.12.2006 and granted interim order which runs as follows :-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as well as Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Sri Parekh prays for and is granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, if the petitioners are in
The finality of a mutation order, the impact of a civil court's decision on a disputed property, and the application of relevant land and revenue acts were central to the judgment.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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 is for fiscal purpose and does not confer any right and title in favor of anyone. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of ....
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
Revenue authorities must continue with mutation proceedings irrespective of civil disputes, as entries in records do not determine title but are essential for fiscal purposes.
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
