Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Dalbir – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue Prayagraj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.7, 8, 9 & 10, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-gaon sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Nathu Singh, predecessor of the petitioners, was recorded over plot nos.1246M, 1249, 1256 of khata no.538, total area 8.4270 hect. Sri Nathu Singh has died on 10.1.1968. In place of Nathu Singh, name of petitioners and other family members were recorded on the basis of succession. A suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act") was filed in the year 2012 by the legal heirs of one Todi Singh (father of respondent no.7) with the prayer that they may be declared co-sharer of ½ share of the plot in question. The aforementioned suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 19.5.2016. Against the dismissal of suit, one appeal was filed before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.4.2019 which has attained finality. Respondent No.1
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
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....
Mutation proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
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.
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
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.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and do not determine title; a registered sale deed remains valid until annulled by a competent court.
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
