Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Ikbal Hasan - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1495 of 2022
Decided On : 30-08-2022
Mutation Proceedings - Land Dispute - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 29, 40-A - Mutation is for fiscal purpose and not decisive of right, title or interest over property - Mutation does not confer any right and title in favor of anyone - Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenges order of mutation and judgment rendered by Board of Revenue in favor of respondent no. 4. Dispute arises from the sale of land for establishing a Cold Storage and subsequent mutation proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that mutation is only for fiscal purpose and is not decisive of right, title or interest over property. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.
Issues: Dispute over mutation proceedings, right, title, and interest in the land.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation is not decisive of right, title, or interest over property. Mutation proceedings do not confer any right and title in favor of anyone. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.
Final Decision: Writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the order passed by Tehsildar as affirmed by Board of Revenue will not come in the way of petitioner if he approaches a competent court of law for adjudication of his rights, qua the land in question.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order of mutation passed by Tehsildar, Chamoli on 06.11.2013 in favour of respondent no. 4. He has also challenged the judgment dated 30.05.2022 rendered by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 147-2016-17 filed by respondent no. 4, whereby the order dated 30.06.2017 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Chamoli in Appeal No. 39/2015-16 was set-aside and Tehsildar’s order passed on 06.11.2013 was affirmed.
3. According to the petitioner, he and his brother owned 3 Nali 8 Muthhi land in Village Kshetrapal, Pargana Dasoli, District Chamoli in which both had equal share; his brother Mahfooz Hasan sold his entire share to Narayan Singh and Pooran Singh by a sale deed dated 22.09.1983, and Pooran Singh authorised Narayan Singh to use the entire purchased land. Narayan Singh established a Cold Storage over the said land by taking loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation (for short ‘U.P.F.C.’), however due to default by Narayan Singh in repayment of loan, entire land with building was sold in a public auction by U.P.F.C. by invoking power under Section 29 of State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Respondent no. 4 purchased the said property in public auction.
4. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that as per norms, two and half Nali land is needed for establishing a Cold Storage; since the land purchased from petitioner’s brother was not sufficient to meet the requirement for getting financial assistance from U.P.F.C., therefore, Narayan Singh got a sale deed fraudulently executed on 06.03.1987 from the petitioner with the assurance that he will return the land once the work of establishing Cold Storage is complete; petitioner’s name continued in the revenue record, even after the sale deed and it is the petitioner who continued in physical possession over the land in question; by a registered agreement executed on 12.08.1992, Narayan Singh relinquished his right over the land, regarding which sale deed dated 06.03.1987 was executed, therefore, no title could have passed on to respondent no. 4, who claims to have purchased the said land from U.P.F.C. in a public auction held on 16.10.1999.
5. Respondent no. 4, who purchased the land in question from U.P.F.C., applied for mutating her name in the revenue records. Her application was initially rejected by Tehsildar vide order dated 24.09.2012 on the ground that name of U.P.F.C. is not recorded in revenue records, another ground which was indicated was that land more than Narayan Singh Negi’s share was sold by U.P.F.C.
6. Respondent no. 4 challenged Tehsildar’s Order dated 24.09.2012 by filing an Appeal which was allowed and learned Assistant Collector remanded the matter to Tehsildar, and subsequently, Tehsildar vide order dated 06.11.2013 allowed the mutation application filed by respondent no. 4.
7. Petitioner challenged Tehsildar’s order dated 06.11.2013 by filing Appeal No. 39/2015-16, which was partly allowed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Chamoli vide judgment dated 30.06.2017 and the order passed by Tehsildar was modified.
8. The judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed by Assistant Collector was challenged by respondent no. 4 by filing a revision, which was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by Assistant Collector, First Class was set-aside and the order passed by Tehsildar on 06.11.2013 was affirmed, by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 30.05.2022.
9. Petitioner has now challenged the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by Board of Revenue and also Tehsildar’s Order dated 06.11.2013.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision filed by respondent no. 4 was not maintainable against Assistant Collector’s order passed in Appeal. Thus, he submits that remedy of revision is not available in a case where either party has availed remedy of appeal. In support of this contention he relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Allahabad High Co
Mutation is for fiscal purpose and does not confer any right and title in favor of anyone. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of ....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
The mandatory reporting of acquisition of legal right and interest within 6 months, the jurisdiction of revenue courts in mutation proceedings, and the principle of estoppel were central legal points....
The Tehsildar retains jurisdiction to entertain mutation applications for non-agricultural land even after acquisition notifications under the National Highway Act, and auction proceedings under the ....
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
