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 entertainable.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and 2 and Sri Mohammed Hamza on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of property situated at gata No.s 137/0.840 hectare, 401/0.296 hectare, 397/0.679 hectare total three numbers having a total area of 1.815 hectare of khata No.152 in Village Gaura Sailak, Pargana and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that on the aforesaid land a mosque is existing which is in the name and style of Masjid Gaura Sailak and previously name of Sri Puttu Khan was recorded as Mutwalli as per the order dated 17.7.1979 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that all the Mutwallis are replaced from time to time and subsequently an application was preferred by one Aqif Kamaal Ayoobi for mutating his name in the revenue records against gata No.s 137/0.840 hectare, 401/0.296 hectare, 397/0.679 situated in Village Gaura Sailak, Pargana and Tehsil Fatehpur, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that recommendations in favour of the applicant has been made by opposite party No.4, namely Sunni Central Waqf Board.

3. The application was opposed by filing objections by one Mohammad Naseem i.e. opposite party No.8 stating that the society Madarsa Darul Uloom Gulshan A Raza Gaura Sailak is the competent authority to look after the working of the said masjid and consequently opposed the application of the petitioner under Section 34/35 of U.P. Revenue Code. The Tehsildar rejected the objections filed by opposite party No.8 and allowed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 4.4.2024 directing that name of the applicant be recorded in the revenue records.

4. Against the order dated 4.4.2024 an appeal was filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate, who also considered the entire records produced by rival parties and found that the term of the society of the petitioner had expired on 17.9.2018 and had not been renewed thereafter and consequently found that the order of Tehsildar was illegal and arbitrary and, hence, allowed the appeal setting aside order dated 4.4.2024 and also remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for consideration afresh.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per the provisions of Section 28 of Waqf Act, 1995 District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or Sub Divisional Magistrate have to implement the orders of the Sunni Central Waqf Board. He submits that the appellate authority was sub Divisional Magistrate, therefore, he was bound to comply with the directions issued by Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not have passed an order contrary to the order passed by Sunni Central Waqf Board.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per provisions of Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie in any civil court, revenue court and any other authority in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any waqf, waqf property or other matter which is required by or under this Act to be determined by a Tribunal.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. He submits that it is the petitioner who had approached the Te