Mutation proceedings under Land Revenue Act are summary, entries serve only fiscal purposes and do not confer title. Writ against such orders not maintainable; title disputes to be adjudicated by civil court under Section 40A.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 24.04.2014, passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and order dated 14.06.2010, passed by learned Collector, Nainital.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deed dated 04.12.2006 from respondent no.6 i.e., Dayakishan. The land in dispute i.e., Khata Khatoni No.00031 admeasuring 0.8220 hectares originally belonged to Shree Vishan Dutt and after his death was entered in the name of his five sons who got 1/5th share of the property. The petitioner purchased the share of Dayakishan by a registered sale deed and thereafter taking possession on the purchased land moved an application for mutation before learned Tehsildar, Kaladhungi, Nainital and vide order dated 12.12.2007 the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent nos.4 and 5 filed an appeal under Section 210 of LAND REVENUE ACT , 1901, before learned Collector, Nainital, which was registered as Appeal No.52/29 of the year 2008-09, Vipin Chandra and another Vs. Pushkar Singh and another , this appeal was allowed by the learned Collector vide order dated 14.06.2010 and the matter was remitted to the learned trial court with a direction that the learned trial court should verify the possession of the parties and pass speaking order, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2014. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders have been passed by the learned courts below in a cursory and cryptic manner without considering the legal facts that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute vide a registered sale deed dated 04.12.2006 from its lawful owner and the learned Tehsildar has rightly mutated the name in his favour. He further submits that the vendor i.e., respondent no.6 was the sole and lawful owner of the impugned property and therefore had absolute right to sell it. He further submits that the appellate court and revisional court failed to consider the fact that in the relevant khasra and khatoni the land in dispute is entered in the name of the petitioner after following the valid procedure for mutation. The courts also failed to consider that the possession of the land and title of the same has also been passed to the petitioner from respondent no.6.

4. The learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that the actual facts of the case are that respondent no.6 is the step brother of respondent nos.4 and 5 and when their father i.e. Vishan Dutt died respondent nos.4 and 5 were minors and during that time respondent no.6 very cleverly got his name mutated in the revenue records. When respondent nos.4 and 5 got to know about this act they filed a Revenue Suit No.22/173 of the year 1999-2000, before the court of learned Assistant Collector under Section 229-B/176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, claiming their rights over the said land and partition thereof. He further submits that both the learned courts below have rightly remitted the matter to the learned trial court as respondent no.6 could not have sold the property until a fix share of property was transferred to his name by way of a partition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material