Shri Abhinav Bhandari and another …… v. Usha Kiran Bhandari

Smt. Durga Devi was recorded tenure holder of the land situated at Village Bhawanipur, Kisna, Tehsil Lal Kuan, District Nanital bearing Khata No.2 measuring

0.606 hectare and Khata No.3 measuring 8.354 hectare and she also had half share in land situated at Village Kishanpur Sarkuliya bearing Khata No.29 and measuring 3.786 hectare.

3. The case of the petitioners is that late Smt. Durga Devi was grandmother of petitioner no.1 and mother-in-law of petitioner no.2 and after the sad 1 demise of Smt. Durga Devi, the share of her on aforesaid land was mutated in favour of petitioners on the basis of undisputed succession. The respondent is the sister-in-law of petitioner no.2 and aunt of petitioner no.1 and she on the basis of alleged Will dated 25.10.2010 of late Durga Devi initiated mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, before Tehsildar which was registered at Mutation Case No.30/1010 of 2011-12/30/1367 of 2014-15. When the petitioners got to know about this fact that the respondent is trying to obtain the property on the basis of fake Will filed a civil suit no.128 of 2011, Abhinav Bhandari and others vs. Usha Kiran Bhandari seeking cancellation of alleged will and relief permanent of injunction against the respondent in furtherance of which, the learned Civil Court was pleased to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 06.03.2014. Aggrieved by the order respondent preferred a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.23 of 2014, Usha Kiran Bhandari vs. Abhinav Bhandari and others, in the court of First ADJ, Haldwani, Nainital, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 08.05.2015.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the Tehsildar and stated that the alleged will is forged and false and also brought the temporary injunction order dated 06.03.2014 in the notice of learned Tehsildar who on the basis of these facts, dismissed the mutation proceedings vide order dated 10.07.2015. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred an appeal before Collector, Nainital who in turn dismissed 2 the appeal vide order dated 02.03.2017. Aggrieved by both the orders, the respondent filed a revision before Board of Revenue, Nainital which was allowed by the Board without hearing the petitioners. Against this order, the petitioners preferred a writ before this Hon’ble Court in WPMS No.2121 of 2017 and this Hon’ble Court remitted the matter back to Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue again allowed the revision vide order dated 17.03.2018 to Tehsildar directing him to decide the mutation proceeding on merits. The learned Tehsildar after hearing the parties and taking the evidence dismissed the mutation application on merit by order dated 04.03.2020. This order was again assailed by the respondent before Collector, Nainital and this appeal was partially allowed by him and vide order dated 20.10.2022, the matter was again remanded to Tehsildar for deciding it afresh. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the said revision was dismissed by member (Judicial), Board of Revenue vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2023.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have erred in law in again directing the Tehsildar to rehear the case on merits when vide order dated 04.03.2020, the Tehsildar has already decided the mutation proceedings on merits.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment dated 01.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this 3 Court in WPMS No.1448 of 2024, Ashutosh Sharma and Another Vs. Madhav Samarpan Samiti, 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. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the will was made by late Smt. Durga Devi in her sound State of Health and with a conscious mind.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record as well as the judgment passed on by the learned counsel for the respondent, 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 records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record- ofrights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi haveonly “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of 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 4 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 5 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.”

9. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in-limine. However, any observations as made above, will not come on the way of the petitioners, if they approach a competent Court of law for adjudication of their rights over the property in question. Needless to say, interim order dated 15.09.2023 also stands vacated.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

24.09.2025 Ravi (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 6