Vishwapal Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby, the said revision filed by the revision

passed by learned Trial Court was set aside.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an educational society, running an Intermediate College i.e. Govind Ballabh Pant Intermediate College at Kashipur, duly recognized with 1 Uttarakhand Education Board and also running Chandrawati Tiwari Kanya Maha Vidhyalay recognized by Kumaun University, Nainital (situated at Khasra No.257, 258, 259 Khevat No.19 Village Maheshpura Kashipur). Earlier, at the place of aforesaid Intermediate College, a school was running by the District Board which was later on affiliated to Junior High School and transferred the petitioner-Society run an Intermediate College on lease of 30 years @ Rs.250/- per annum vide proposal dated 28.06.1971 and the said lease has been extended for next 30 years through government order No.196/5-Pancha/Prakosth/ 2002- 2003 dated 31.01.2003 issued by Panchayati Raj Department Dehradun. Another piece of land situated at Khata Khewat No.12 Ujjain Tehsil and Pargana Kashipur was donated by its true owner-Shri Ram Mohan @ Shanti Prasad to the aforesaid school through a registered gift deed dated 20.08.1973.

4. A Suit No.25 of 2012 year 2004-05 under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by the petitioner-Society to get its name recorded in the revenue record, which was ordered on dated

29.06.2005. Thereafter, an application dated 10.10.2018 was moved by the private respondents under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, which was registered as Suit No.25/03 year 2018-19 Vishvapal Kumar Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., in the Court of learned Assistant Collector-1st Class, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, mainly on the ground that Chaube Ram Kishan was Hissedar in Khevat No.19 measuring 5.74 acre situated at Village Maheshpura Kashipur and father of the applicants (private respondents herein), Yashpal Kunwar was only 2 the successor of Chaube Ram Kishan and now they are the successors of Yashpal Kunwar being his sons. In the aforesaid application, a report was called from the Tehsildar Kashipur regarding the land in question, who submitted a detailed report dated 25.05.2019 before the learned Trial Court and thereafter, after considering the objection and documents available on record, order dated 24.12.2019 was passed by learned Assistant Collector-1st Class/S.D.O. Kashipur and dismissed the correction application of the private respondents on the ground that the private respondents failed to establish that the name of the petitioner-Society has been recorded due to clerical error and the private respondents may get their rights declared from the Competent Court.

5. Against the said order dated 24.12.2019, private respondents have filed a revision No.09/2019-20 Vishvapal Kumar Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 on the similar pleadings raised in the application dated 10.10.2018. Learned Revisional Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated

29.07.2022 allowed revision of the private respondents mainly on the ground that the learned Court below observed through letter dated

28.06.1971 school was transferred to petitioner-Society wherein no Khasra Number was mentioned. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.07.2022, petitioner-Society is before this Court.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondents did not disclose that until which year their names were recorded in the revenue record. Entry of the name of petitioner-Society 3 is recorded under the settlement proceedings as per the Land Revenue Act, hence, the same cannot to be said clerical mistake.

7. He further submits that learned Revisional Court while passing impugned order dated

29.07.2022 did not take into account the settled position of law that long standing entries may not be corrected under the proceedings of Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The impugned order passed by learned Revisional Court is against the provisions of law and has been passed by ignoring the objections raised by the petitioner-Society before the learned Court below and as such the same is liable to be set aside. He also submits that in the given situation, the case cannot be remanded to the learned Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7 on the basis of counter affidavit submits that the petitioner-Society has not been able to show any lease deed in its favour, of the aforementioned Khasra Numbers. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by learned Revisional Court as per provisions of law and while passing the impugned order, all the objections and contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered.

9. He further contends on the basis of supplementary counter affidavit that during pendency of writ petition, due to some irregularity in the elections of the petitioner-Society, it has been placed under the control of Authorized Controller vide order dated 19.12.2024 written by Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand to the Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, therefore, at present, the petitioner-Society is not in existence. 4

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 has drawn the attention of this Court to judgment dated

09.09.2025 passed by this Court in WPMS No.2596 of 2025 Ved Prakash Uppal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., and judgment dated 25.09.2025 in WPMS No.1275 of 2011 Nirmal Pal Vs. UP Sanchalak Chakbandi and Ors., whereby, these writ petitions were 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.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 7, 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-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.

12. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Dei and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others, decided 5 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.”

13. 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-Society if it approaches a competent Court of law for adjudication of its rights over the property in question.

14. Interim order dated 24.11.2022 stands vacated. PN (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.10.2025 6