Mutation entries confer no title; true rights must be established in civil court, even when a will is claimed.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 revisional authority whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 10.05.2016 as well as the order dated 21.11.2000 by virtue of which the mutation order passed in favour of the private respondents no.5 to 11 has been affirmed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold, it is primarily urged that in proceedings for mutation once there is a Will of the testator then the provision of Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which relates to succession is excluded and it would be the Will which would prevail and in the aforesaid circumstances where the petitioner had claimed on the basis of a Will dated 29.09.1980 which was duly proved in accordance of Section 63 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT read with Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , accordingly the authorities below have committed an error in not appreciating the aforesaid aspect while dismissing the claim of the petitioner.

4. It has further been submitted that the witnesses who were produced also helped the case of the petitioner; inasmuch as it was found that the petitioner was in possession and in such mutation proceedings finding of possession if rendered by the authority would have significance and ignoring the aforesaid aspect, the Courts have committed an error which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court of Smt. Imrat Jahan and others Vs. 8th Additional District Judge, 1998 (1) AWC 544 and reliance has been placed on paragraphs 7 to 10 of the said report.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that a supplementary-affidavit was filed and certain documents were filed to indicate that the private respondent who was claiming to be the daughter of the testator this fact also was shrouded by suspicious circumstances which were not repelled by the private respondents.

7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record.

8. It is now not in dispute that the Court does not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanating from mutation proceedings which are only summary in nature as no right or title is finally decided in such proceedings.

9. It will also be relevant to notice that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue and others , 2022 (3) AWC 2338 has taken note of the instances wherein the Court may entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it will also be relevant to notice the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jitender Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others 2021 SCC Online SC 802 wherein it has been held as under:-

"...6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged Will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it ma