High Court
Case Details
1 A.F.R. JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON 07.05.2022 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON 23.05.2022 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39791 of 2014 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Goel Respondent :- Commissioner And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Tiwari Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking to raise a challenge to the orders dated 29.03.2014, 22.07.2013 and 25.06.2010 passed by respondent No.1, 2 & 3 namely Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad, Parganadhikari Najibabad District Bijnor and Tehsildar, Najibabad District Bijnor respectfully. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner for mutation was rejected. 3. The case set up by the petitioner was based on the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.09.1973 and a non-registered Family Settlement dated 21.09.1986. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner stated that he is entitled for mutation of his name in the Revenue Records. On the other hand, the case set up by the respondent No.4 is on
Legal Reasoning
"9...It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that 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. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court..." 10. Reference may also be had to the judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12, wherein it was held that the revenue authorities cannot decide questions of title and that mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The observations made in this regard are as follows:- ''45. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense... It is well-settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title.'' 11. The proposition that mutation entries in revenue records do not create or extinguish title over land nor such entries have any presumptive value on title has been restated in a recent decision in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 191 placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh
Arguments
the basis of Registered Will Deed dated 18.01.2005 executed by Sri Ved Prakash Goyal/husband of the respondent No.4. The claim set up by the petitioner was rejected by all the courts below on the ground that the Family Settlement dated 21.09.1986 is an unregistered documents and 2 the same will not prevail over the Registered Will Deed dated 18.01.2005. 4. It is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 that no writ petition lies against summary proceedings and in the present case mutation proceedings had been contested by the petitioner till the stage of revision and no writ petition lies against the order of revisional authority and the only relief can be claimed by filing a regular suit for declaration of title. It is further argued that as the mutation proceedings are summary in nature, petitioner has remedy of filing a declaratory suit for declaring his right under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2016. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner had contested the mutation proceedings filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act till the stage of revision. It had been a constant view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein the title over the land is not decided and the proceedings are only for fiscal purpose to enable the State to collect revenue from the person whose name is on record. The mutation proceedings does not confer upon any right or title on the person whose name is entered in the revenue records. 6. In Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under; "5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction. 6. The law is well-settled that: 3 (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court. 3. It is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court." 7. The question with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings fell for consideration in the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors. 2002 (93) RD 6 and it was held that the High Court does not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason that mutation proceedings are only summarily drawn on the basis of possession and the parties have a right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit. The observations made in the judgment are extracted below:- "11. This Court has consistently taken the view as is apparent from the decisions of this Court referred above that writ petition challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings are not to be entertained. To my mind, apart from there being remedy of getting the title adjudicated in regular suit, there is one more reason for not entertaining such writ petition. The orders passed under Section 34 of the Act are only based on possession which do not determine the title of the parties. Even if this Court entertains the writ petition and decides the writ petition on merits, the orders passed in mutation proceedings will remain orders in summary proceedings and the orders passed in the proceedings will not finally determine the title of the parties." 8. A similar observation was made in Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 736, wherein it was held as follows:- 4 ''19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable...'' 9. The principle that an entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and title to the property can only be decided by a competent civil court was reiterated in the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others (2007) 6 SCC 186 and it was stated as follows :-