The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction and applicability of legal provisions governing mutation proceedings, particularly in the context of land falling within the territorial jurisdiction of a Nagar Nigam and the implications of such categorization on the applicability of the Land Revenue Act, 1901.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner before this Court has raised his grievances, as against the impugned revisional court’s order, which had been passed by the learned court of Board of Revenue, on 05.04.2022, in Revision No.08 of 2021-2022 Santosh Agarwal vs. Umesh Kumar and Another, as well as the revisional court’s order dated 31.03.2022 which was passed by the court of Commissioner Garhwal Division, Pauri Camp, Dehradun in Revision No.09 of 2021-2022 Umesh Kumar vs. Santosh Agarwal and others. In the proceedings which were held under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 arising out of the orders dated 19.03.2020/20.03.2020 in Case No.75 of 1987, which was instituted under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, for mutation.

2. Brief facts which engages consideration in the present writ petition are that a proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act of 1901, was initiated and registered before the court of the Tehsildar as Case No.75 of 1987, Indrawati vs. Kunwar Chand Bahadur, in the said case for mutation of entries which was instituted in the court of Additional Tehsildar vide its order of 17.06.1988, had directed making the alteration in the revenue records, on the basis of the registered sale deed, which finds referenced in the order in relation to Khasra Nos.203, 204, 205, having an annual revenue accruing to it of Rs.67/-.

3. In fact the genesis of the proceedings is emanating from the proceedings which were held under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, in relation to a land which falls under Chapter A-8 of the Land Record Manual, as contained in para A-124. Para A-124 of the Land Record Manual classifies the arrangement of holdings and revenue entry of the petitioner, as recorded in the khatauni, the reference of which has been made by the petitioner pertains to the revenue entries which were made in 1399 to 1404 fasli, in relation to the land which in column 4 is shown to have been recorded as Shreni 1-Ka Land. Shreni1-ka land would be falling to be a land which has been classified under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act of 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as ZA & LR Act) wherein in under Sub Clause (1), it provides that Shreni 1, land would be the land of a bhumidhar for transferable rights which has to be read in consonance to the provisions contained under Section 130 of the ZA & LR Act which elaborates upon Bhumidhari Land with transferable rights. It is on the basis of the order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, in relation to the aforesaid khasras, it is contended, that as a consequence of allowing of the mutation application of Smt. Indrawati, the property stood recorded in the name of Smt. Indrawati, the mother of the petitioner.

4. The mother of the petitioner met with the sad demise on 22.08.1988 intestate, hence, the petitioner, since claiming himself to be one of the surviving heirs and successor to whom the property would devolved as per Section 172 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, had contended, that after the sad demise of the mother on 22.08.1988, since their estates already stood vested with a female, the right of succession would be governed by the provisions of Section 172 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, applicable to the devolvement of rights to a female estate. The petitioner contends that upon the death of his mother he applied for the mutation of his name in the revenue records in place of his mother by filing an application to the said effect on 17.01.2020, for recording his name as against Khata No.57, which included within it Khasra Nos.203, 204 and 205 of village Raipur, District Dehradun.

5. The application thus preferred by the petitioner for recording himself on 17.01.2020 was considered by the court of Additional Tehsildar and petitioner was directed to be mutated, on the basis of the order of 19.03.2020 and 21.3.2020, in the revenue records of vil