Smt. Siddhi Devi v. Board of Revenue and others

and the records were corrected accordingly. Aggrieved by the correction, Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed Revision No. 115/2014-15 (“Smt. Ganga Devi and others vs. Smt. Siddhi Devi and others”) before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the revision, the District Collector passed an order dated 12.10.2015 under Section 28 of the L.R. Act, directing correction of the from point ABCD to ABCDEF. However, by judgment dated 22.01.2016, the Revisional Court allowed the revision, setting aside the SDM’s order dated

04.12.2014. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application on 15.03.2016, seeking recall of judgment dated 22.01.2016, which was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel the petitioner contends that the respondents have no locus to challenge the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, as their rights or entries were not affected in any manner by the said order. It is submitted that the old Khasra number of the petitioner was 47, which has been renumbered as Khasra No. 80, whereas the respondents’ land, originally part of Khasra No. 46, has been reclassified as Khasra Nos. 75, 76, 77, and partially 79. The learned counsel also submits that there is no overlap between the lands of the petitioner and the respondents, and hence, the correction made in Khasra No. 80 in favor of the petitioner does not prejudice the respondents. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the Assistant Collector had correctly directed rectification in the revenue records based on a factual inspection and official reports, but the Board of Revenue, without proper application of mind or consideration of the foundational documents and material evidence, erroneously allowed the revision and set aside the well-reasoned order of the Assistant Collector.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the base year Khatauni (Fasli 1399–1404) under Khata No. 288, Khasra No. 47 min, measuring 0.0320 hectare, which was subsequently renumbered as Khasra No. 80. However, due to a clerical and surveying error, 0.0120 hectare was mistakenly recorded in Khasra No. 86 Kha excluded petitioner’s holding. Consequently, the total area was incorrectly shown as

0.0200 hectare in the new Khatauni (Fasli 1402–1407). The learnd counsel further submits that upon survey, it became evident that the total landholding of the petitioner was 0.064 hectare, including the misreported portion. The petitioner’s application for correction was based on this factual discrepancy, and no third party’s rights were adversely affected. It is thus submitted that respondents, having no right or claim in Khasra No. 80, lacked standing to file a revision, and the Revisional Court erred in entertaining and allowing their revision.

6. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court misapplied the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, ignoring the fact that the process under that provision had already been concluded by the District Collector, Dehradun, vide order dated 12.10.2015 in Suit No. 7/2014-15 titled Siddhi Devi vs. Smt. Manga Devi, wherein the map was duly corrected. The revision was thus not maintainable. The counsel asserts that the Revisional Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction by disturbing findings of fact arrived at by the Assistant Collector after due inquiry and examination of all relevant documents. The learned counsel therefore submits impugned order is not only perverse and based on conjecture and surmise but also amounts to interference with a lawful correction of the revenue record, bordering on a nullity. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Revisional Court be set aside, and the order of the Assistant Collector dated 04.12.2014 be restored.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent by means of their counter affidavit submits that the contents of the writ petition are incorrect. He also submits that it is incorrect to say that the Learned Revisional allowed revision without appreciating the findings of the learned court below. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner objected regarding maintainability of the revision filed by the respondent no.2,3 and 4, to the contrary the petitioner had filed a review application which was dismissed by the learned board of revenue, Dehradun.

8. 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 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 (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.

9. 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, 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.”

10. 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 she approaches a competent Court of law for adjudication of its rights over the property in question. Rdang (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.10.2025