Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3205
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Indraj And Others - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Ors. – Respondents
Writ B. No. 1003862 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Ram Lakhan Ojha, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Sanjeev Kumar Ojha.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta, R.N. Gupta.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature, do not confer title, and disputes regarding title must be adjudicated in a competent civil court.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Act - Sections 33 and 39 - Mutation proceedings pertaining to land recorded as a pond - Petitioner sought restoration of deleted names from revenue records after proceedings were conducted ex parte - Courts upheld that land recorded as pond cannot be subject to consolidation - An entry in revenue records does not confer ownership or title and must be established by a competent court. (Paras 4, 5, 24)
(B) Mutation Proceedings - Nature and jurisdiction - Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not determine substantive rights or title, thus challenging their decisions through writ petitions under Article 226 is not maintainable. (Paras 9, 24)
(C) Judicial consistency - Prior case rulings consistently emphasize that revenue records serve fiscal purposes only and do not affect ownership. (Paras 24, 23, 22)
JUDGMENT :
Alok Mathur, J.
1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel on behalf of the Gaon Sabha.
2. It is in mutation proceedings initiated at the behest of the State that the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of the LAND REVENUE ACT were initiated at the behest of the State pertaining to Gata No.595 situated at Village Ishanpur, Pargana & Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh on 16.01.2008 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
3. By means of the order dated 18.07.2008, the names of the Jaganath son of Bhaggu, the deceased, Badahu, Indraj, Tirath Raj, Udai Raj all sons of Jaganath were deleted from Gata No.595 i.e. Gata No. 595/0.938 hectare (old Gata No.566/9, 566/5, 566/10, 566/11. The said land was recorded as a pond while the remaining was kept as it is. Against the order dated 18.07.2008, the petitioner had filed restoration application stating that the proceedings were conducted ex parte and accordingly, by means of order dated 10.06.2009 the previous order dated 18.07.2008 was set aside.
4. After hearing of the parties concerned, the restoration application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 20.07.2011, against which the petitioner filed the revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also considered the entire facts of the case and upheld and sustained the order dated 20.07.2011. It was recorded that during consolidation operation, the Chak allotted to the petitioner was recorded as a Talab and considering the fact that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi and others reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3215 such land cannot be subject matter of agricultural plot in favour of any private individual upheld the validity of the order dated 20.07.2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances while assailing the order dated 10.12.2012 has submitted that once the land has been allotted in favour of the petitioner during consolidation operations, then the same could not have been set aside in the manner it has been done in proceedings under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. LAND REVENUE ACT .
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned order and stated that a land which is recorded as pond, cannot be subject matter of consolidation operations and granted in favour of any tenure holder. He further submits that in fact the said land was purchased by the petitioner on the basis of a sale deed and even if a portion of the pond has been purchased, the same cannot be taken into account while mutating the name of the petitioner in such proceedings with regard to the property which is recorded as the pond in the revenue record.
7. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation entry pertaining to the land purchased by the petitioner which has been recorded as a pond. The authority below have returned a concurrent findings of the fact that the land which is recorded as pond, cannot be mutated in favour of any individual in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra)
8. Apart from the above, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings, which are on the consideration, are mutation proceedings and no right or title can be derived by any individual on the basis of the such summary proceedings. In case, the petitioner was to establish his title, then he has to file a suit for declaration before the competent court and submit all the evidences in support of his submissions where a proper declaration can be issued and such a declaration would be binding on the revenue authorities.
9. Apart from the above, there are consistent judicial pronouncements of this Court, writ petition against mutation proceeding would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The question of the maintainability
