HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL vs Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate for the petitioners.

deceased father, Late Sri Narain Lal Sah, consists of 1 residential and commercial houses located squarely within the Municipal Limits of Champawat. The petitioners assert that these properties already stand mutated in municipal records in the name of their father, and that municipal taxes are paid accordingly under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1916”), as applicable to Uttarakhand. The dispute began when respondent no.3 submitted an application before the Tehsildar seeking mutation of the said residential properties on the basis of a will allegedly executed by their late father. Upon receiving notice, the petitioners raised a preliminary objection stating that houses situated within municipal limits do not fall within the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and that mutation of house property is governed exclusively by the Municipal Board. They also disputed the validity of the will itself, alleging that it was suspicious, had never been probated under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1925”), and therefore could not form the basis of any mutation. Despite these objections, the Tehsildar proceeded to reject the petitioners’ preliminary objection and directed production of evidence of the attesting witnesses to the will. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, which too came to be dismissed on the reasoning that although the houses were situated within municipal limits, the land underlying the houses had not been transferred to the Municipal Board and was therefore governed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1950”), making the mutation proceedings maintainable before the revenue authorities. This led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders suffer from a fundamental 2 jurisdictional error. It is argued that the properties in question are indisputably houses situated within the Municipal Limits of Champawat, duly recorded in the municipal registers, and assessed to municipal taxes. Under the Act of 1916 and the statutory scheme governing municipal areas, the jurisdiction to mutate house property vests exclusively in the municipal authorities. Once a property is within municipal limits and is assessed to municipal taxes, revenue authorities jurisdiction altogether. The Commissioner, therefore, committed a patent illegality in invoking the Act of 1950 merely because the land beneath the houses had not been transferred to the Municipal Board, according to the petitioners, such reasoning overlooks the legal reality that a house includes the land on which it stands.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the will relied upon by respondent no.3 is not only suspicious but wholly unenforceable since it has never been probated under Section 213 of the Act of 1925. No mutation order can be passed on the basis of an un- probated will. It is argued that the mutation proceedings initiated by respondent no.3 are a colourable attempt to create rights in the property in his favour contrary to the law, and that permitting the will to be adjudicated upon by the revenue authorities - who have no competence to decide questions of title, amounts to a serious miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel also states that the petitioners had lawfully raised a preliminary objection and that the Tehsildar was duty-bound to decide the jurisdictional question but failed to apply his mind, instead proceeding to examine the will. Thus, both the orders dated 15.11.2014 and 22.05.2015 are liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction. 3

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3, submits that the entire writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable. Relying upon judicial precedent, contended that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and that orders passed therein do not attract writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners’ reliance on municipal entries is misplaced because dual entries in municipal and revenue records can legitimately coexist and there is no legal bar to mutation under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1901”), even where houses fall within municipal limits. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the properties inherited comprise both land and buildings and that Section 34 of the Act of 1901 squarely applies to succession of “land”, which necessarily includes any structure standing on it.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioners themselves had earlier sought mutation of the same properties from the Tehsildar on the basis of a will executed in 1983 by their grandfather, and having invoked the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities once, they are estopped from now alleging lack of jurisdiction. The objections raised by the petitioners are said to be wholly untenable as the statute does not contemplate “preliminary objections” in mutation proceedings. The Tehsildar, therefore, rightly rejected the same. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Commissioner’s reasoning by submitting that the Act of 1950 continues to govern all land, including land within municipal limits, until it is formally transferred to the Municipal Board. Since such transfer has admittedly not occurred, the mutation application was maintainable before the Tehsildar. The learned counsel also denies all allegations regarding the will being suspicious and states 4 that its validity can be examined within the mutation proceedings themselves.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel petitioners reiterates respondent’s defence proceeds on an incorrect interpretation of the statutory scheme. They dispute the applicability of Section 34 of the Act of 1901 altogether, asserting that the said provision applies only to “land” as defined under the U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, namely land held or occupied for agricultural, horticultural, or animal husbandry purposes. The properties in question, being residential and commercial buildings situated within municipal limits, do not fall within this definition and therefore lie outside the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar or any revenue authority. Once again, it is emphasized that the municipal record reflects the property as house property, and all taxes are assessed and collected by the Municipal Board.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contend that the respondent deliberately suppresses the fact that the mutation application concerns only houses and no open land capable of agricultural use. It is submitted that buildings cannot be artificially bifurcated into land and structure to bring them within the Act of

1950. The rejoinder also presses the argument that the will cannot be looked into by the revenue authorities, who are incompetent to adjudicate upon issues of title, proof, or genuineness of testamentary documents. Such issues can only be decided by the competent civil court or the District Judge in probate proceedings. The petitioners, therefore, assert that the revenue authorities have not only exceeded their jurisdiction but have proceeded in a manner contrary to the Indian Succession Act. 5

9. In the supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 again disputed the petitioners’ assertions and maintains that properties within municipal limits do not automatically oust the jurisdiction of revenue authorities for mutation purposes. He places reliance on R.T.I. obtained from Nagar Palika Champawat dated 16.12.2015, which clarifies that while municipal bodies assess house tax and maintain records for taxation purposes, mutation of land and buildings is carried out only by the Revenue Department and not by the Municipal Board. He submits that municipal entries serve only fiscal purposes, whereas the Tehsildar retains exclusive authority to record names upon succession.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further reiterates that the petitioners themselves had previously applied for mutation of buildings and land before the same Tehsildar on the basis of the 1983 will executed by their grandfather, and therefore cannot now assert that the Tehsildar lacks jurisdiction. He emphasizes that the will dated 02.12.2011 bequeaths both land and buildings and therefore falls squarely within Section 34 of the Act of 1901. The assertion that buildings cannot be deemed to include land underneath is rejected as legally untenable. The learned counsel further denies all allegations concerning the suspicious nature of the will and asserts that the revisional authority passed a reasoned and well-considered order after applying judicial mind. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondent reiterates that no ground is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. Having heard the arguments advanced and after perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition under 6 Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Tehsildar and the Commissioner have acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Act of 1901. Section 34 of the Act of 1901 explicitly governs succession and mutation of land, and by extension, any structures standing thereon. The fact that the properties include residential or commercial buildings situated within municipal limits does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. Municipal records and taxation entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not create exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction over mutation or succession matters.

12. The nature of mutation proceedings under the Act of 1901 is summary and administrative. Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not attracted unless there is total absence of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the Tehsildar and Commissioner have passed reasoned orders after due consideration of the materials and objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners’ preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction was examined and rejected with valid reasoning. Their contentions of jurisdictional error are therefore factual disputes, which cannot form the basis for interference in writ proceedings at this stage.

13. Even if municipal limits are considered, the revenue authorities continue to have jurisdiction over land- related succession. The properties in question involve both land and buildings; Section 34 covers land, which necessarily includes any structures erected thereon. The petitioners cannot artificially bifurcate buildings and the underlying land to oust the statutory jurisdiction of 7 revenue authorities. Moreover, the petitioners themselves have previously invoked the jurisdiction of the Tehsildar to mutate properties based on an earlier will, which estops them from asserting total lack of jurisdiction now.

14. The petitioners’ objections regarding the validity of the will are substantive matters of fact and not matters of jurisdiction. Whether the will is suspicious, un-probated, or unenforceable can be contested and adjudicated within the mutation proceedings. The alleged infirmities in the will do not confer upon this Court a right to interfere at the threshold under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court must exercise caution in interfering with orders of revenue authorities when effective remedies exist within the statutory scheme. The petitioners have the option to raise objections, seek civil adjudication, or pursue probate proceedings as appropriate. There is no allegation of mala fide conduct or complete denial of natural justice that would warrant this Court’s intervention at this stage, and interference would be premature, improperly stifling ongoing statutory proceedings.

15. The petitioners’ claim the mutation concerns only houses and therefore lies outside revenue jurisdiction is factually and legally untenable. As per the R.T.I. response from the Nagar Palika and statutory provisions, revenue authorities retain the power to record mutations even for properties assessed for municipal taxes, unless a formal transfer of land to the Municipal Board has occurred. Mutation proceedings are not civil suits, and statutory provisions do not contemplate preliminary objections in the technical sense; rejection of such objections cannot be treated as a jurisdictional defect. No exceptional circumstances exist to invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 8 as the objections raised by the petitioners relate to factual and statutory interpretations rather than to perverse or ultra vires actions on the part of the revenue authorities.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Tehsildar and Commissioner have acted within their statutory powers and that the mutation proceedings are maintainable. The objections raised regarding the will, municipal limits, and preliminary jurisdictional issues are factually and legally contestable and do not justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

17. Accordingly, the present writ petition dismissed. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.12.2025 9