Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Kapil Ram Pandey and Another - Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue and Another - Respondents
Writ - B No. 47402 of 2012
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Mutation - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of property between the petitioners and respondent no.2, based on two conflicting will deeds executed by the deceased. The Tehsildar initially allowed the mutation application in favor of the petitioners based on a registered will deed, which was later challenged and overturned by the Board of Revenue. The matter was brought before the High Court through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Tehsildar had rightly exercised jurisdiction in considering the claims based on the will deeds. It held that the subsequent unregistered will deed was not proved and that the Board of Revenue had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in directing the recording of names based on the unregistered will deed. The court set aside the revisional order and affirmed the Tehsildar's order to record the petitioners' names based on the registered will deed.
Issues: Dispute over inheritance based on conflicting will deeds, jurisdiction of mutation proceedings, and revisional authority's powers under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper exercise of jurisdiction in mutation proceedings, subject to adjudication by the regular court. It also highlighted the limitations on the revisional authority's powers and the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements under Section 92 proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the revisional order and affirming the Tehsildar's order to record the petitioners' names based on the registered will deed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Tarun Gaur, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Bakunth Ram Pandey, had two sons, namely, Raghunath Pandey and Ishwar Prasad Pandey. Raghunath Pandey died issuless and Ishwar Prasad Pandey had three sons, namely, Raj Kishor Pandey, Kapil Ram Pandey and Brijesh Ram Pandey. Kapil Ram Pandey and Brijesh Ram Pandey are petitioner nos. 1 & 2 in the instant petition and Meera Pandey, widow of Raj Kishor Pandey is respondent no.2 in the instant petition. A registered will deed is alleged to be executed in favour of the petitioners by Raghunath Pandey on 19.2.2002. Another unregistered will deed was alleged to be executed on 2.3.2002 in favour of respondent no.2 as well as petitioners by Raghunath Pandey. The property of Raghunath Pandey was situated in two villages, namely, Balwaniya and Lohari. A mutation application was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of the registered will deed dated 19.2.2002 in respect to the property situated in the aforementioned two villages, accordingly, two cases were registered which were numbered as Case Nos. 469 & 896 before the Tehsildar. Mutation application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 were also filed by respondent No. 2 on the basis of her unregistered will deed dated 2.3.2002 which were also registered as Case Nos. 581 & 582 before the Tehsildar. All the aforementioned four cases were consolidated and heard together. The Tehsildar vide order dated 25.3.2004 recorded a finding that will deed executed on 19.2.2002 is fully proved, as such, the petitioners are entitled to be recorded in place of deceased Raghunath Pandey and claim set up by respondent no.2 on the basis of unregistered will deed is liable to be rejected. The order dated 17.6.2002 passed on the basis of Pa Ka-11, recording the name of Ishwar Prasad Pandey (father of petitioners) has been set aside. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 25.3.2004, Appeal No.13 of 2003-04 was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate by respondent no.2 under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which was heard and dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2004. Against the order dated 29.4.2004, respondent no.2 filed revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow which was registered as Case No.112/L.R./2003-04. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 28.7.2005 allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 29.4.2004 passed by Tahasildar as well as order dated 25.3.2004, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, ordered and to record the name of respondent no.2 as well as petitioners on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 2.3.2002. The petitioners challenged the order dated 28.7.2005 passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue through Writ Petition No.59259 of 2005 which was allowed vide order dated 29.8.2011 setting aside the order of respondent no.1/Board of Revenue dated 28.7.2005 and the matter was remanded back before the Board of Revenue to decide the revision afresh. In pursuance of the remand order passed by this Court on 29.8.2011, revision was heard afresh by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue and respondent no.1 has again allowed the revision vide order dated 10.7.2012, setting aside the order dated 29.4.2004 and 25.3.2004 as well as directed the authorities to record the name of respondent no.2 along with petitioners on the basis of will deed dated 2.3.2002. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the order dated 10.7.2012 passed by respondent No.1/Board of Revenue.
3. This Court vide order dated 17.9.2012 entertained the matter and issued notice to respondent no.2. This Court vide subsequent order dated 4.4.2016 further granted time to the counsel for the private respondent no.2 to file counter
The interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court regarding the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements to modify will deeds.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
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 are summary in nature and do not decide substantive rights, thus a writ petition is not maintainable.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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
