IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation entries do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes; disputes over title must be resolved in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. Nil of 2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an application for amendment in the memo of writ petition to add the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow as respondent No. 6 in the array of parties, the same is taken on record.

2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid amendment.

3. The application for amendment is allowed.

4. The petitioners are permitted to incorporate the necessary amendment in the memo of writ petition during the course of the day.

Order on Order Sheet

1. Heard Shri Gyanendra Kumar Sharma holding brief of Shri Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 12.4.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 1014 of 2023 (Shri Ravi Kumar v. Dayawati Diwan Singh Shukla and others).

3. Sri Jitendara Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that since the proceedings, in the instant case, have arisen on account of an application being filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for the mutation in the revenue records and the said proceedings being summary in nature, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Madhav Pandey and others v. Board of Revenue and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1311; wherein it has been held that the mutation proceeding is summary in nature and a writ petition against the summary proceeding is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Para 26 of the said judgment, it has been very categorically held as under:

“...there is no need to consider the question as to whether the revisional Court has committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction. Assuming for argument sake that there is some error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue, the said error will not make the order without jurisdiction. As held above, the writ petition arising out of the summary proceedings, can be entertained only when there is lack of jurisdiction. It being not a case of lack of jurisdiction, no interference is called for in the impugned order on the basis of the above submission of the counsel for the petitioners.”

4. This Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others v. Collector, Jalaun and others, 2021 (153) RD 369; has held that ordinarily orders passed by mutation Courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings. Revenue entries in the revenue record do not confer any title and it is only the competent Court that declares the rights of the aggrieved party in a regular suit filed for declaration.

5. In the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad and others, 2021 (6) ADJ 176, this Court has carved out certain exceptions per which the writ petition would be maintainable even against orders passed in summary proceedings despite the said order having been affirmed/set aside by the Appellate Court and Board of Revenue. For the sake of conveyance, para 19 wherein the said proposition has been laid down, is indicated below:

“19. The Courts in the aforecited decisions have laid down a few parametres for entertaining writs arising out of mutation proceedings. The exceptions that have been carved out being very few, for example:

(i) If the order is without jurisdiction.

(ii) If the rights and title of the parties have already been decided by the competent Court, and that has been varied by the mutation Courts.

(iii) If the mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed, b