Nirmal Pal v. Up Sanchalak Chakbandi and Ors

petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.1992 passed by respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the order dated

30.03.2011 passed by respondent No.1-Upsanchalak Chakbandi/Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Case No.52/05 of 2004-05.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioner Kallu had purchased a land Gata No.1065 area 5 Begha, Gata No.1074/1 area 2 Bigha 5 Visha, total area 7 Begha 5 Visha, Chak No.245 of present Khatoni No.213 (New Khatoni No.1006 area 0.3687 Hectare) through a registered sale deed from original Bhumidhar Ram Charan, Nathu Ram@ Nathua, S/o Late Beni Ram, on 23.07.1984 and taken possession. The said land was not in the name of petitioner’s father in the year 1980 when the will was made in favour of the respondent No.4, who illegally mutated abovementioned disputed land in his name by producing a forged will 1 dated 10.03.1980 before respondent No.3 in Suit No.30 of 1992 Firasat Khan Vs. Kallu, before the respondent No.3 and the order of mutation was made by him vide order dated 28.07.1992. The petitioner came to know the mutation order dated 28.07.1992 on

06.10.2004 at the time of taking of Khatoni from Lekhpal. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal No.256 of 2004 Nirmal Pal Vs. Firasat Khan and Ors., before respondent No.2-Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, which was allowed vide order dated 08.12.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2004, respondent No.4 filed a revision being Revision No.52 of 2004-05, before the respondent No.1, which was allowed on 21.10.2005, on the basis of forged compromise filed by respondent No.4. Thereafter, petitioner filed a writ petition (M/S) No.1560 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2006 with a direction to petitioner to move recall application for recalling the order dated 21.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the recall application for recalling the order dated 21.10.2005 before the respondent No.1, which was rejected vide order dated 30.03.2011 on the ground that the review was not maintainable. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.10.2005 in Revision No.52 of 2004-05 was passed on the basis of a forged compromise as the petitioner did not entered into any compromise with respondent No.4. He further submits that the father of petitioner Late Kallu belonged to Scheduled Caste, whose property cannot be transferred in the name of respondent No.4 by way of will. 2

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the disputed land was not in the name of Late Kallu (father of the petitioner) in 1980, by whom no will could be made in favour of the respondent No.4, who produced forged will dated 10.03.1980 before respondent No.3, who has not applied his mind in giving the judgment in favour of the respondent No.4.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submits that respondent No.1 has rightly rejected the recall application of the petitioner. She further submits that the order dated 21.10.2005 has been passed on the basis of mutual compromise which was verified by Notary.

6. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to a judgment dated 09.09.2025 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2596 of 2025 Ved Prakash Uppal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., whereby, the said writ petition was dismissed. He also relied on few judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court viz. Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma V. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 58 and Faqruddin V. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned State Counsel, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it does not confer any title over the property and this is only for the fiscal purposes. My view is further fortified by a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan (Supra), wherein, it is observed and held that an entry in revenue 3 records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.

8. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Dei and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others, decided on 21.11.2020 in WPMS No.73 of 2013 has held that it is a settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. The relevant paras are extracted herein as below:- “2. It is the settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. Rather to the contrary, the Law contemplates that any entries which are made as a consequences of the orders passed under the proceedings which are provided under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, would only be having a fiscal affect because it only determines the entitlement of the State and liability of a person/revenue holder, to ensure the remittance of the Land Revenue, payable towards the land which was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Some of the judgments, the reference of which has been made by the counsel for the respondents in relation to the aforesaid subject, have been reported in 2004 (97) RD 696, Smt. Manorma Devi and others vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others; 2002 (93) RD 510, Smt. Gyan Mati Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Basti Division and others; 1996 (6) SCC 223, Sawarni (Smt) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) and others as well as 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3038, Smt. Rani Devi vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others.

3. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it has been consistently held by the Courts, that, any adjudication which is made in a mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 would always be a subject to the provisions contained under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act, is aggrieved against if any person i.e. 4 determination made or on a denial made to record, his name in the Revenue records, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the effected person will have had to resort the proceedings of instituting the regular suit for deciding their rights.”

9. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, any observations as made above, will not come on the way of the petitioner if he approaches a competent Court of law for adjudication of his rights over the property in question.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.09.2025 5