Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Gupteshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the mutation order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on the mutation proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. principle governing the summary nature of mutation proceedings. (Para 8) |
| 5. final conclusion on case outcome. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.2 of 2023
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the instant application is allowed.
Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition during the course of the day.
Order on Writ petition
Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Guran son of Raghunath was recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute. After death of Guran, name of contesting respondents were ordered to be recorded on the basis of Pa Ka-11 vide order dated 23.02.1990. Petitioners applied for mutation of their names only in place of recorded tenure holder Guran on the basis of succession under Section 34 of
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
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 and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
Mutation proceedings under U.P. Revenue Code do not determine title or confer ownership; such matters are subject to civil court adjudication, and petitions against mutation orders are generally not ....
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 ....
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.
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
