Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7 and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plot in dispute belonged to Ganpat, son of Hari Ram, resident of village Rudhauli, Tappa, Padhiya, Pargana Basti Purab, Tehsil and District Basti. Ganpat executed an unregistered will deed in favour of petitioners as well as Om Prakash son of Thakur on 19.2.1973. Ganpat expired on 4.3.1973. Petitioners are the heirs of deceased Ganpat, being the real cousins. Petitioners filed an application for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on the basis of will deed executed on 19.2.1973. In the aforementioned mutation proceeding, Lalit Ram and Others have filed the objection on the basis of the registered gift deed, alleged to be executed on 8.5.1970 by Ganpat in their favour. Second objection was filed by Kashi Prasad and others and third set of objection was filed by Govind Saran, on the basis of agreement to sale executed by Ganpat in their favour and 4th set of objection was filed by Smt. Mathura, claiming herself to be the heir of deceased Ganpat. The evidences were adduced by the parties in the aforementioned mutation proceeding. The Tahsildar vide order dated 17.11.1975, allowed the mutation application filed by the petitioner, on the basis of the will deed and rejected the objection filed by the other set of opposite parties. Against the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.11.1975, Jeeva Ram and Others filed an appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which was heard by respondent no.3 and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.6.2015, setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.11.1975 as well as directed the authorities to record the name of Lalit Ram, Kamta Prasad, Raghvendra Prasad, Shailendra Prasad and Rupan, on the basis of the gift deed dated 8.5.1970, in the place of deceased Ganpat. Petitioners challenged the appellate order dated 23.6.2015 through revision No. -2055 under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue which was entertained and an interim protection was granted. The Board of Revenue finally heard the matter and vide order dated 24.7.2023 dismissed the revision. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the orders dated 24.7.2023, passed by the respondent no.2 and 23.6.2015, passed by respondent no.3.

3. It is also material fact that against the appellate order dated 23.6.2015, Revision No.1685 of 2015 was also filed under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 before the Board of Revenue by one Om Prakash which was consolidated with Revision No.2055 of 2015 and both the revisions were dismissed vide common impugned order dated 24.7.2023. Om Prakash challenged the order dated 24.7.2023 passed in Revision No.1685 of 2015 as well as order dated 23.6.2015, passed by respondent no.3 in appeal through Writ B No.825/2023.

4. This Court vide judgment dated 21.9.2023 disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a suit for declaration under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is also material fact that Civil Suit No.164 of 2015 (Ved Prakash and Others vs. Lalit Ram and Others) filed for cancellation of gift deed dated 8.5.1970 as well as injunction is pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Basti.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tahsildar has rightly passed the order for mutation in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the will deed, executed in favour of the petitioners along with Om Prakash. He further submitted that the Tahsildar has considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before passing the order of mutation in favour of the petitioners, as such, no interference was required against the order of mutation passed by the Tahsildar. He further submitted that the appellate court