Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Rama Shanker – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as well as Mr. Hari Prasad Singh, Advocate in person who is impleaded as respondent No.3 in the instant petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording their names on the basis of sale deed dated 15.01.1975/06.10.1977 executed by Smt. Sumariya in favour of Hari Prasad Singh and others. The aforementioned mutation case was registered as case No.87/52 before Naib Tehsildar, Meja, Allabahad. The Naib Tehsildar heard the matter and vide order dated 13.07.1978 rejected the mutation application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Against the order dated 13.07.1978 passed by Naib Tehsildar, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appeal under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 which was registered as Appeal No.2013 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad and vide order dated 29.01.1979, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed. Respondent Nos
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 U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
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 under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
The court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision, ruling that the Naib Tehsildar acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner's claims were dismissed due to lack of grounds for recall.
The Board of Revenue must provide adequate reasoning in its orders; a cryptic order is unsustainable in law.
Mutation orders based on valid sale deeds remain effective despite ongoing civil disputes; judicial review under the U.P. Land Revenue Act is limited to clear illegality.
Mutation proceedings do not confer title, and substantive rights must be established in a competent civil court.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
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
