Yashpal Singh v. State Of Up And 6 Others

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Ranjeet Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed, the service of notice upon private respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is being dispensed with. The present writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings and is directed against the order dated 5.2.2024 passed in Case No. 1889 of 2023 by the respondent No. 2, Addl. Commissioner, Administration-III, Meerut Division, Meerut in revision whereby the revision has been dismissed and the order dated 4.9.2023 passed in appeal registered as Case No. 2459 of 2022 preferred against the order dated 28.2.2022 of the Naib Tehsildar, 6th Tehsil, Sadar, District Meerut in Case No. 05265 of 2020 Computer Case No. T202011520105265 has been upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute relates to Gata NO. 65 area 0.0860 hectare, Gata No. 138 area 0.063 hectare and Arazi No. 145 area 1.2880 hectare situate in Mauja Aghera, Tehsil Sadar, District Meerut which was the bhumidhari of the father of the petitioner late Nawab Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that essentially the dispute with regard to the aforementioned plots is between the petitioner (father) and his son, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 7. The mutation has been sought by the petitioner on the basis of succession, while the respondent No. 7 has set up a Will dated 23.6.1993 stated to be executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 7 on the basis of the Will dated 23.6.1993 succeeded in getting his name mutated over Gata No. 145 and on the basis of the mutation entry executed a sale deed of the said plot in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 10.11.2020. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of the Will dated 23.6.1993 as also a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.11.2020, which proceedings are pending consideration before Competent Courts of Law. Admittedly, in the suit for cancellation of the Will dated 23.6.1993, i.e. Suit No. 542 of 2020 as also in the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.11.2020 i.e. Suit No. 456 of 2020, no injunction is operating in favour of the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the strength of the sale deed dated 10.11.2020 executed in their favour applied for mutation of their names in place of the respondent No. 7. The petitioner filed his objections in the mutation proceedings stating that the mutation may not be ordered as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not in possession over the Plot No. 145 and the same is in the cultivatory possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have filed a Transfer Application under Section 212 (2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which transfer application was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2021. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order was rejected vide order dated 2.3.2022. After rejection of the transfer application filed by the petitioner on 13.10.2021, the Court of Naib Tehsildar (6th), Tehsil Sadar, Meerut proceeded to decide the mutation case observing that there was no impediment in proceeding with the case and passed an order dated 28.2.2022 mutating the names of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 over the Plot No. 145 area 1.2880 hectares on the strength of the sale deed dated 10.11.2020. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2022 passed by the Naib Tehsildar 6th, the petitioner filed an appeal, being Appeal No. 2459 of 2022 asserting the ground that the petitioner has been in continuous uninterrupted possession over the plot No. 145. The Appellate Authority/Deputy Collector (Revenue), Meerut Division, Meerut, Tehsil Sadar, District Meerut dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Naib Tehsildar 6th, Sadar, Meerut vide order dated 4.1.2023 being of the view that the mutation could not be refused on the basis of a sale deed as there was no restraint order in either of the suits filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority further observed that mutation proceedings did not confer any rights and are only for fiscal purposes. Against the order dated 4.9.2023, the petitioner preferred a revision, being Revision No. 8 of 2023, under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The revision also has been dismissed upholding the order passed in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that none of the Revenue Authorities have recorded any finding on the question of possession. The mutation proceedings have been decided merely on the basis of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. No finding as regards possession has been recorded. . The question of maintainability of a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings was considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and the law on the issue has been summarized after considering various decisions of the Apex Court and Division Bench and Single Bench decisions in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. The Board of Revenue and 6 others, Writ-B No. 295 of 2022 decided on 05.04.2022. The Coordinate Bench in Para 40 of the aforementioned decisions summarized the legal position as under:- "40. Having regard to the foregoing discussion the exceptions under which a writ petition may be entertained against orders passed in mutation proceedings would arise where : (i) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; (ii) rights and title of the parties have already been decided by a competent court, and that has been varied in mutation proceedings; (iii) mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into questions relating to entitlement to succeed the property, touching the merits of the rival claims; (iv) rights have been created which are against provisions of any statute, or the entry itself confers a title by virtue of some statutory provision; (v) the orders have been obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, or by fabricating documents; (vi) the order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction; (vii) there has been a violation of principles of natural justice." Now examining the case at hand in the light of the exceptions carved out herein above, the Court finds that the Revenue Authorities recorded satisfactory reasons for allowing the mutation in favour of the respondent. The case at hand does not fall in any of the exceptions as carved out. The mutation proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, is fiscal in nature. Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question as held by Supreme Court in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr., (2007) 6 SCC 186, mutation order was obtained on the basis of will although civil suit for cancellation of the will was pending. Supreme Court held that 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. As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of Will and cancellation of sale deed are pending. The Will as also the sale deed are not void documents. Full Bench of this Court in Ram Nath vs. Munna, 1976 RD 220 (F.B.) has held that so long as registered sale deed is not cancelled by civil court, it cannot be ignored by revenue court and is liable to be given effect to. However, a void document can be ignored by the revenue court. In view of the above, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to say that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to establish his rights over the property in dispute before a Competent Court of Law. Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)