Court No. - 9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12848 of 2022

Petitioner :- Phoolchand And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Kumar Dave

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4

and Shri Alok Kumar Dave, learned counsel for respondent

no.6.

2. The petitioners have preferred present writ petition inter-alia

with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 28.09.2018

and 02.12.2021 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional

Commissioner (Judicial-IInd), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj

and 4-Tehsildar Phoolpur, District Prayagraj respectively. By

the aforesaid orders application filed by the petitioners for

mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was

rejected.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from

perusal of the record, it appears that petitioners had contested

the mutation proceedings filed under Section 34 of the U.P.

Land Revenue Act till the stage of revision. It had been a

constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that

mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein the title

over the land is not decided and the proceedings are only for

fiscal purpose to enable the State to collect revenue from the

person whose name is on record. The mutation proceedings

does not confer upon any right or title on the person whose

name is entered in the revenue records.

4. In Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC

3825 this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the

proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act

held as under;

"6. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue

entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as

prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under Section

34/35, 39, 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to

determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of

jurisdiction.

7. The law is well-settled that:

(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the

parties over the land involved is not decided;

(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to

enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded;

(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;

(iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties

over the land in dispute; and (v) such orders or entries are not documents

of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.

8. It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis

of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the

parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is

not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings

unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title

already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get

their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent

court."

5. The question with regard to the maintainability of a writ

petition arising out of mutation proceedings fell for

consideration in the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of

Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. 2002 (93) RD 6 and it was

held that the High Court does not entertain a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that

mutation proceedings are only summarily drawn on the basis of

possession and the parties have a right to get the title

adjudicated by regular suit. The observations made in the

judgment are extracted below:-

"11. This Court has consistently taken the view as is apparent from the

decisions of this Court referred above that writ petition challenging the

orders passed in mutation proceedings are not to be ente