Ramvir Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

the order passed by the Commissioner and affirmed the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the Tehsildar. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has illegally ignored the sale deed dated

08.08.1991 executed in favour of the petitioner and three others. It is further submitted that once Javitri Devi had sold the property in question in favour of Jay Devi, who is vendor of the property, the second sale deed executed by Javitri Devi in favour of respondent no. 5 is a void document. Further submission is that respondent no. 5, initially, has put his case forward on the basis of sale deed dated 24.08.1980 but, subsequently, she has changed his footing and mentioned the date of the sale deed as 24.08.1990. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal, unwarranted under the law and tainted with irregularities. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 has contended that there is no existence of the alleged sale deed dated 08.08.1991, said to have been executed by Jay Devi in favour of the present petitioner. Further contention is that copy of the alleged sale deed dated 08.08.1991 (Annexure- 2) reveals that, in fact, it is a mortgage with possession in favour of the petitioner and other co-vendees. No document has been adduced to prove the factum of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. It is next contended that there is no documentary evidence available on the record to prove that Javitri Devi, main tenure holder, had executed any sale deed in favour of Jay Devi, who is alleged vendor of the petitioner. Next contention is that there is no legal claim of the petitioner over the property in question and, in case, has he any right over the property in question, same can appropriately be adjudicated upon by the court competent. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is legal and suffers with no infirmity and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having considered the rival submissions advance by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it reveals that admittedly Javitri Devi was the recorded tenure holder of the land in question. The petitioner is claiming his right and title on the basis of the alleged sale deed dated 08.08.1991 alleged to have been executed by Jay Devi, who has derived her right and title from the recorded tenure holder Javitri Devi through sale deed executed by her. On the other hand, respondent no. 5 is claiming her right and title on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 24.08.1990 executed by the recorded tenure holder Javitri Devi. After chequered history of litigation between the parties, finally, the Tehsildar has passed an order dated

30.05.2013 in favour of respondent no. 5 recognizing her right and title over the property in question on the basis of registered sale deed dated 24.08.1990. Order of the Tehsildar was reversed by the Commissioner, vide order dated 29.01.2015, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Board of Revenue, on revision being filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner and affirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar. Perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue reveals that he has considered the chequered history of litigation between the parties and upheld the right and title of respondent no. 5 on the basis of sale deed dated

24.08.1990, which was initially mentioned as

24.08.1980. The Commissioner has allowed the revision only on the ground that in a mutation application, proclamation was made on the basis of the sale deed dated 24.08.1980, therefore, proclamation itself was invalid. The Board of Revenue has given a categorical finding that at subsequent stage litigation was contested considering the sale deed dated

24.08.1990. Apart from that, perusal of deed dated

08.08.1991, prima facie, appears to be a mortgage deed with possession executed by Gaya Devi in favour of the petitioner and three others. Right and title of Gaya Devi is itself under could to be proved by credible and unimpeachable evidence in the court having competent jurisdiction. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in uphelding the mutation of property in the name of respondent no. 5 in the revenue record, in place of original tenure holder Javitri Devi, on the basis of registered sale deed dated

24.08.1990 executed in her favour. Learned Commissioner has committed error in discarding the claim of respondent no. 5 on technical point whereas some has pale into insignificance considering the fact that subsequently litigation was contested between the parties on the basis of correct date of sale deed dated

24.08.1990 and the title of the petitioner and his vendor is under cloud. Even otherwise the legal proposition with respect to the nature and scope of proceeding under Section 34 of the L. R. Act is no more res integra. Mutation proceeding is fiscal and summary in nature which does not confer any right or title in favour of any party. Any order passed in the mutation proceeding is always subject to the final adjudication of right and title of the parties in a regular proceeding by the competent court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated September 06, 2021(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13146 of 2021; Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), has expounded that title of the parties can only be decided by the court having competent jurisdiction and the mutation of the property in the revenue records neither creates nor extinguish title of the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Relevant paragraph nos. 6,

6.1 & 7 of the said judgment is quoted below :- "6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court 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. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Raqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the new taken by the High Court." In this conspectus as above, Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his submissions as advanced by him in assailing the impugned order under challenge. There is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the impugned order which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a declaratory suit before the court having competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 9.9.2022 VR Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad