Nagar Nigam Dehradun v. Gaurav Kumar and another

Case No.01/2017-18, Shri Gaurav Kumar Vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun.

2. The facts in brief are that the name of Shri Ram Mittal s/o Ramji Das was registered as Category-IV in Khasra No.239m New Khasra No.142B Admeasuring

0.0820 hectares of Village Kishanpur, he filed a Case No.17 of 2007-08, Shri Ram Mittal Vs. State, for regularization and the said case was dismissed by the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub- Divisional Magistrate on 29.03.2008. He thereafter filed a revision against the said order under Section 219 of U.P. 1 Land Revenue Act, 1901, in the court of learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri- Garhwal in which he submitted that the name of the revisionist is in Category-IV and he is in possession thereof and cultivation is also going-on therefore regularization should have been done in his favour. The Revisional Court vide order dated 02.07.2008 allowed the said revision and set aside the impugned order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter against the order of learned Additional Commissioner, a revision was filed before court of Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Board of Revenue), but the said revision was dismissed. Against the said order Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, came before this Court and the petition was registered as Writ Petition (M/S) No.836 of 2009, Municipal Corporation, Dehradun Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the State Government to give its report on the following points:-

1. As to whether Ramji Mittal is alive and has given power of attorney.

2. Whether the land in-question is of Varg-IV or Varg-IX and is in possession of Ramji Mittal? If yes duration of the possession and capacity of Ramji Mittal to occupy the same.

3. As to whether the land in-question is a public utility land vested in Nagar Nigam which is required for public utility purpose and is at present being used as a play ground of an intermediate college.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while in compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by High Court an administrative committee was formed 2 by the learned Collector, Dehradun, but in the meantime Shree Gaurav Kumar (respondent no.1) who had no connections with the aforesaid proceedings filed against no.44 of 2009-10, Gaurav Kumar Vs. Shri Ram Mittal, before the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadar Dehradun, under Section 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and without impleading the Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, as party-respondent obtained an ex parte order and removed the name of Government Inter College as the Khatedar of the disputed land. He also submits that Shri Ram Mittal who is deceased since 1970 was also made a party in the aforesaid case and the fact of his death was also concealed. In spite of the administrative proceedings going-on in-lieu of the orders of this Court, the aforesaid judicial proceedings were initiated and the name of Gaurav Kumar was mutated in the aforesaid proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2020. He further submits that the petitioner-Nagar Nigam filed a revision against the said order in the court of learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division, who acting in very illegal and arbitrary manner rejected the revision vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts’ below have exceeded their jurisdiction in mutating the name of the respondent- Gaurav Kumar in the records of the disputed property under Sections 33 and 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 undermining the settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 are summary in nature and only empower the concerned authorities to make corrections or omissions in the annual register. 3

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 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 4 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. 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.) 07.10.2025 5

Case No.01/2017-18, Shri Gaurav Kumar Vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun.

2. The facts in brief are that the name of Shri Ram Mittal s/o Ramji Das was registered as Category-IV in Khasra No.239m New Khasra No.142B Admeasuring

0.0820 hectares of Village Kishanpur, he filed a Case No.17 of 2007-08, Shri Ram Mittal Vs. State, for regularization and the said case was dismissed by the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class/Sub- Divisional Magistrate on 29.03.2008. He thereafter filed a revision against the said order under Section 219 of U.P. 1 Land Revenue Act, 1901, in the court of learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri- Garhwal in which he submitted that the name of the revisionist is in Category-IV and he is in possession thereof and cultivation is also going-on therefore regularization should have been done in his favour. The Revisional Court vide order dated 02.07.2008 allowed the said revision and set aside the impugned order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter against the order of learned Additional Commissioner, a revision was filed before court of Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Board of Revenue), but the said revision was dismissed. Against the said order Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, came before this Court and the petition was registered as Writ Petition (M/S) No.836 of 2009, Municipal Corporation, Dehradun Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the State Government to give its report on the following points:-

1. As to whether Ramji Mittal is alive and has given power of attorney.

2. Whether the land in-question is of Varg-IV or Varg-IX and is in possession of Ramji Mittal? If yes duration of the possession and capacity of Ramji Mittal to occupy the same.

3. As to whether the land in-question is a public utility land vested in Nagar Nigam which is required for public utility purpose and is at present being used as a play ground of an intermediate college.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while in compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by High Court an administrative committee was formed 2 by the learned Collector, Dehradun, but in the meantime Shree Gaurav Kumar (respondent no.1) who had no connections with the aforesaid proceedings filed against no.44 of 2009-10, Gaurav Kumar Vs. Shri Ram Mittal, before the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Sadar Dehradun, under Section 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and without impleading the Municipal Corporation, Dehradun, as party-respondent obtained an ex parte order and removed the name of Government Inter College as the Khatedar of the disputed land. He also submits that Shri Ram Mittal who is deceased since 1970 was also made a party in the aforesaid case and the fact of his death was also concealed. In spite of the administrative proceedings going-on in-lieu of the orders of this Court, the aforesaid judicial proceedings were initiated and the name of Gaurav Kumar was mutated in the aforesaid proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, vide the impugned order dated 25.11.2020. He further submits that the petitioner-Nagar Nigam filed a revision against the said order in the court of learned Commissioner, Garhwal Division, who acting in very illegal and arbitrary manner rejected the revision vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts’ below have exceeded their jurisdiction in mutating the name of the respondent- Gaurav Kumar in the records of the disputed property under Sections 33 and 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 undermining the settled proposition of law that the proceedings under Sections 33 and 39 are summary in nature and only empower the concerned authorities to make corrections or omissions in the annual register. 3

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 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 4 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. 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.) 07.10.2025 5