HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the

mutation application of deceased Shri Mangal Sain, mutating the name of the deceased Shri Mangal Sain in records of Nagar Nigam.

2. The facts in brief are that the disputed property was initially purchased by Shri Mangal Sain and Smt. Ram Kali vide sale deed dated 20.08.1993 from Shri Gurmukh Das. Smt. Ram Kali was the grandmother of the present petitioner and out of her love and affection towards him she executed a will dated 13.11.1993 of her part in the property in the name of the petitioner. On 04.12.1993 Smt. Ram Kali died and the aforesaid will came into force. To his surprise the petitioner later on came to know that Shri Mangal Sain who happens to be the real uncle of the petitioner manipulated a forged will dated 22.10.1993 in favour of himself. The petitioner for the first time came to know about the alleged forged will on 02.11.2002 when he received a 1 notice on behalf of Shri Mangal Sain for mutation from the Office of Nagar Nigam. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objections in the Office of Nagar Nigam against the mutation application, but despite of the said objections the mutation proceedings were allowed in favour of Shri Mangal Sain vide order dated 20.12.2003. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under Section 472 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 before the Appellate Authority i.e., Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun which was registered as Nagar Nigam Appeal No.2 of 2004, Gaurav Jain Vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun and others, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal Shri Mangal Sain expired and respondent nos.2 to 7 being his legal representatives were substituted. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated

21.07.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order are passed by both the Authorities below without application of mind and are unreasoned and non-speaking orders and were passed without considering the objections passed by the petitioner. Both the courts below failed to notice that the alleged will dated 22.10.1993 does not bear the thumb impression of Smt. Ram Kali and its attestation is apparently suspicious. Moreover no attempts were made by Shri Manish Sain to prove the genuineness of the will.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.8 relying upon his counter affidavit submits that the petitioner has not averred any error or perversity in the impugned orders passed by both the lower courts below. He further submits that mutation proceedings are only for fiscal purpose and have no bearing upon the title of the disputed property. He also submits that the Apex Court in multiple judgments has categorically held that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised against mutation proceedings as they are merely summary in nature. 2 In the case in hand also by the order passed by the respondent-Nagar Nigma, Dehradun dated 20.12.2023 only mutation was ordered.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that mutation and correction 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 Vs. Financial Commissioner rendered in (2007) 6 SCC 186 wherein, it is observed and held that an entry in revenue 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.

6. Moreover, a Co-ordinate 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 3 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, i.e. if any person is aggrieved against the 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.”

7. The ratio of these case laws conveniently be applied in this case.

8. 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 it approaches a competent Court of law for adjudication of its rights over the property in question. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.10.2025 4