Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Amit Dixit – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 34773 of 2021
Decided On : 19-05-2023
WILL - Mutation Proceedings - U.P. Land Revenue Act-1901, U.P. Revenue Code-2006 - Section 40-A, Section 39
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over mutation proceedings based on conflicting Wills, with the petitioner claiming mutation based on a Will dated 12.08.1999 and the respondents relying on a registered Will dated 16.11.1998. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer, and Additional Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that mutation entries do not impact the title of the parties and that orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings. The court disposed of the writ petition, refusing the challenge to the impugned orders and directing the orders to be given effect in the revenue records, subject to the ultimate decision in the regular proceedings.
Issues: Dispute over mutation proceedings based on conflicting Wills, maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation entries do not have any impact on the title of the parties, and orders passed by mutation courts are subject to the result of regular proceedings either on civil or revenue side.
Final Decision: The challenge to the impugned orders was refused, and the orders were directed to be given effect in the revenue records, subject to the ultimate decision in the regular proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 and Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
2. One Mewa Dixit alias Mewa Prasad was “bhumidhar” of certain agricultural land and he died on 10.05.2003. It is stated that mutation proceedings were instituted and contested on the basis of two Wills allegedly executed by Mewa Prasad. The case of the petitioner is that Mewa Prasad executed Will in favour of mother of the petitioner on 12.08.1999 whereas the case of the private respondents is that the said Will is not genuine, rather, manufactured. The only Will executed by Mewa Dixit was dated 16.11.1998 in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 who are daughters of the testator.
3. The petitioner applied for mutation on the basis of alleged Will dated 12.08.1999 and the Tehsildar by order dated 28.08.2008 directed making of entry in his name. Needless to say that petitioner is son of Pushpa Devi in whose favour the Will of 1999 is alleged to have been executed. The daughters of Mewa Dixit challenged the order of Tehsildar in appeal. The appeal was allowed by order dated 09.01.2009 and the order of Tehsildar was set aside and direction was issued that in place of Mewa Dixit, names of his daughters i.e. respondent nos.4 and 5 be recorded on the basis of registered Will dated 16.11.1998. The petitioner filed revision against the said order which was dismissed by order dated 02.04.2009.
4. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 09.01.2009, 02.04.2009 & 23.04.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal was decided without summoning the record from the Tehsildar. He further submits that whereas the petitioner fully proved Will dated 12.08.1999, the contesting respondents failed to prove their Will and, therefore, the order of Tehsildar could not be reversed in appeal and revision.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition stating that Will relied upon by the petitioner was shown to have been executed in Calcutta and there are various infirmities in the Will namely that the testator therein alleged as if his wife had died and no description of daughters of the testator was given in the Will. It is further argued that no one in the family of Mewa Dixit has any concern with Calcutta and the execution of the alleged Will at Calcutta is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel further submits that the Will dated 16.11.1998 executed by Mewa Dixit was the only registered Will whereas alleged Will dated 12.08.1999 relied upon by the petitioner is an unregistered document. He further argues that Mewa Dixit in the registered Will of 1998 had clearly described that his wife was alive on the date of execution of the Will and psroperty rights would devolve upon his daughters i.e. respondent nos.4 and 5.
7. During the course of arguments, it has been argued that two suits are pending between the parties. Both the suits are said to have been filed by the petitioner side, one of which is in the nature of suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code-2006 (in short ‘the Code 2006’) and the other, in the nature of civil suit being Original Suit No. 1459 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the plaint of Original Suit No. 1459 of 2008 as well as interim order dated 30.07.2022, in which, taking note of interim order passed by this Court in the present writ petition, it has been observed that there is no justification to pass any order on the interim injunction application and the case was posted for framing of issues.
8. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that writ petition arising out of mutation orders is not maintainable as these are summary proceedings which are subject to result of regular proceedi
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 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 ....
Mutation proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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
