Court No. - 32

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16362 of 2021

Petitioner :- Subash

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Singh Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Gaon

Sabha.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the appellate order

dated 16.12.2020 as well as objection filed under Section 35(2)

of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has been rejected by the

respondent no.4 in mutation proceedings.

3. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Gaon Sabha

submitted that no writ petition lies against summary

proceedings and in the present case mutation proceedings had

been contested by the petitioner till the stage of revision and no

writ petition lies against the order of revisional authority and

the only relief can be claimed by filing a regular suit for

declaration of title. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of

this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others,

2012 (4) AWC 3825. Learned Standing Counsel further submits

that as the mutation proceedings are summary in nature,

petitioner has remedy of filing a declaratory suit for declaring

his right under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from

perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the

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

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

5. In Mathura (Supra) this Court while dealing with this

aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P.

Land Revenue Act held as under;

"5. 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 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.

6. 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.

3. 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."

6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahesh Kumar

Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial,

Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated

the same view and held as under;

"16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not

confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of

this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.

17. In view of the foregoing