Kindara and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others passed by

of 1901") and affirmed the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Revision No.1379/2009-2010, under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others).

5. The subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings.

6. It is to be noted that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

7. Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.

8. Mutation of a property in 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. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.

9. Considered the aforesaid as also the following facts. (i) On 25.07.2005 based upon the compromise/settlement between Beerendra and Smt. Kindara widow of Shailendra, real brother of Beerendra, in mutation case no.105, under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act 1901'), the following order was passed:- "ववाद ककी कवाररववाहही पवारर, दवारवा भभू रवाजस्व अधधिननिरम ककी धिवारवा 34 कके अन्तररत नदनिवााሪक 10.3.2005 कको निवामवााሪतरण पसभूचनिवा पस्ततुत कर स्वराሪ कके प्ቌ मम धिवारवा 171 ज०नव०अ० कके अन्तररत उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेश पवाररत करनिके ककी रवाचनिवा ककी। ववाद पाሪजहीकक त उपरवान्त इश्तहवार जवारही नकरवा ररवा जको बवाद तवामहील साሪल्ሿ पतवावलही नकरवा ररवा। वकवालतनिवामवा शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा दवारवा पस्ततुत कर आपध्ቈ कवा अवसर चवाहवा ररवा। आपध्ቈ पस्ततुत करनिके कके पभूवर हही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा एवाሪ ववादही दवारवा एक साሪधधिपत पस्ततुत नकरवा नक नवप्ቌही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा मकतक ककी नवधिववा हहै अतत नवधिववा कके प्ቌ मम उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेशवा पवाररत कर नदरवा जवारके। पवारर कको ककोई आपध्ቈ निहीሻ हहै। साሪधधिपत बवाद तस्दहीक साሪल्ሿ पतवावलही नकरवा ररवा। इस पकवार ववाद ननिनवरववाद हको ररवा। ववाद मम पवारर निके अपनिके सवाቌኚर अाሪनकत करवारके , शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा निके अपनिवा सवाቌኚर अाሪनकत करवारवा। शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा दवारवा अनभलकेखहीर सवाቌኚर मके पररववार रधजस्टर ककी पनत एवाሪ उ्ቍरण खततौनिही पस्ततुत ककी। पररववार रधजस्टर सके स्प्ቖ हहै नक नवप्ቌही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार पतुत रवामलवाल ककी नवधिववा हहै और ननितसन्तवानि हहै। स्वराሪ पवारर निके अपनिके सवाቌኚर मम इस तथ्र ककी पतुन्ቖ ककी हहै। मकतक शहैलकेन््ቖ ककी मकत्रतु कके सम्बाሪधि मम प्ቌको मम ककोई नवववाद निहीሻ हहै। इस पकवार सवाቌኚरोሱ सके स्प्ቖ हहै नक मकतक शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार ककी एक मवात उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही उसककी नवधिववा जहीनवत हहै जको ज०नव०अ० ककी धिवारवा 171 कके अन्तररत मकतक ककी एक मवात वहैधि उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही हकोतही हहै। अतत न्रवार नहत मम उनचत हकोरवा नक पवारर दवारवा पस्ततुत निवामवातरण पसभूचनिवा नवधधिक नि हकोनिके कके कवारण ननिरस्त कर नवप्ቌही कके प्ቌ मम बततौर नवधिववा उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेश पवाररत नकरवा जवारके। तदनितुसवार निवामवान्तरण पसभूचनिवा ननिरस्त ककी जवातही हहै तरवा मकतक ककी नवधिववा कके प्ቌ मम धिवारवा 171 ज०नव० अ० कके अन्तररत उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा ननिम्नि आदकेश पवाररत नकरवा जवातवा हहै। अतत आदकेश नदरवा जवातवा हहै नक भभूनम गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर पररनिवा व तहसहील सण्डहीलवा ककी खततौनिही वरर 1407 सके 1412 फ० ककी खवातवा साሪ० 821 रवाटवा साሪ० 855/1.364. 860/1.741 1323/1.118 भभू रवाजस्व 93=80 सके बकदर नहस्सवा मकतक खवातकेदवार शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार पतुत रवामलवाल ननिववासही गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर कवा निवाम पकरक कर उसकके स्रवानि पर शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा पत्निही स्व० शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार ननिववासही गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर कवा निवाम ज०नव०अ० ककी धिवारवा 171 कके अन्तररत बततौर उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही दरवाधधिकवाररणही अाሪनकत नकरवा जवारके। पतवावलही बवाद अमलदरवामद साሪनचत अनभलकेखवारवार ककी जवारके।" (ii) After order dated 25.07.2005, quoted above, Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, executed sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (iii) After aforesaid order dated 25.07.2005 the petitioner preferred an application for recall of order dated 25.07.2005. This application was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2008 by the Tehsildar, Sandila, District- Hardoi. (iv) Vide order dated 26.06.2008 the Tehsildar declared the sale deed dated

06.05.2008 as void document. In mutation proceeding the sale deed cannot be declared as void document. (v) The order dated 26.06.2008 was set aside vide order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Revision No.1379/2009-2010 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) under Section 219 of the Act

1901. (vi) A perusal of the order dated 15.12.2015 indicates that the Revisional Authority considered the various aspects of the case including the fact that the order dated 25.07.2005 was passed on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties namely Beerendra, petitioner herein, and the real sister-in-law of the petitioner namely Kindara widow of Shailendra. (vii) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the application for recall of order dated 27.05.2005 passed in the mutation case was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, solemnized marriage after death of his brother. However, the Tehsildar in absence of proof of marriage recalled the order dated 27.05.2005 which was favourable to Smt. Kindara who after this order sold the property vide sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (viii) Record also indicates that the petitioner had already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 that was executed by Smt. Kindara which is pending as O.S. No.1553 of 2024 (Beerendra Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar & others). (ix) It is to be noted that in the suit aforesaid Smt. Kindara has not been impleaded as defendant.

10. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also that the dispute in issue i.e. genuineness/validity of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and not in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned court would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

of 1901") and affirmed the order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Region, Lucknow in Revision No.1379/2009-2010, under Section 219 of the Act, 1901 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others).

5. The subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings.

6. It is to be noted that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes. Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

7. Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.

8. Mutation of a property in 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. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.

9. Considered the aforesaid as also the following facts. (i) On 25.07.2005 based upon the compromise/settlement between Beerendra and Smt. Kindara widow of Shailendra, real brother of Beerendra, in mutation case no.105, under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short 'Act 1901'), the following order was passed:- "ववाद ककी कवाररववाहही पवारर, दवारवा भभू रवाजस्व अधधिननिरम ककी धिवारवा 34 कके अन्तररत नदनिवााሪक 10.3.2005 कको निवामवााሪतरण पसभूचनिवा पस्ततुत कर स्वराሪ कके प्ቌ मम धिवारवा 171 ज०नव०अ० कके अन्तररत उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेश पवाररत करनिके ककी रवाचनिवा ककी। ववाद पाሪजहीकक त उपरवान्त इश्तहवार जवारही नकरवा ररवा जको बवाद तवामहील साሪल्ሿ पतवावलही नकरवा ररवा। वकवालतनिवामवा शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा दवारवा पस्ततुत कर आपध्ቈ कवा अवसर चवाहवा ररवा। आपध्ቈ पस्ततुत करनिके कके पभूवर हही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा एवाሪ ववादही दवारवा एक साሪधधिपत पस्ततुत नकरवा नक नवप्ቌही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा मकतक ककी नवधिववा हहै अतत नवधिववा कके प्ቌ मम उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेशवा पवाररत कर नदरवा जवारके। पवारर कको ककोई आपध्ቈ निहीሻ हहै। साሪधधिपत बवाद तस्दहीक साሪल्ሿ पतवावलही नकरवा ररवा। इस पकवार ववाद ननिनवरववाद हको ररवा। ववाद मम पवारर निके अपनिके सवाቌኚर अाሪनकत करवारके , शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा निके अपनिवा सवाቌኚर अाሪनकत करवारवा। शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा दवारवा अनभलकेखहीर सवाቌኚर मके पररववार रधजस्टर ककी पनत एवाሪ उ्ቍरण खततौनिही पस्ततुत ककी। पररववार रधजस्टर सके स्प्ቖ हहै नक नवप्ቌही शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार पतुत रवामलवाल ककी नवधिववा हहै और ननितसन्तवानि हहै। स्वराሪ पवारर निके अपनिके सवाቌኚर मम इस तथ्र ककी पतुन्ቖ ककी हहै। मकतक शहैलकेन््ቖ ककी मकत्रतु कके सम्बाሪधि मम प्ቌको मम ककोई नवववाद निहीሻ हहै। इस पकवार सवाቌኚरोሱ सके स्प्ቖ हहै नक मकतक शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार ककी एक मवात उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही उसककी नवधिववा जहीनवत हहै जको ज०नव०अ० ककी धिवारवा 171 कके अन्तररत मकतक ककी एक मवात वहैधि उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही हकोतही हहै। अतत न्रवार नहत मम उनचत हकोरवा नक पवारर दवारवा पस्ततुत निवामवातरण पसभूचनिवा नवधधिक नि हकोनिके कके कवारण ननिरस्त कर नवप्ቌही कके प्ቌ मम बततौर नवधिववा उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा आदकेश पवाररत नकरवा जवारके। तदनितुसवार निवामवान्तरण पसभूचनिवा ननिरस्त ककी जवातही हहै तरवा मकतक ककी नवधिववा कके प्ቌ मम धिवारवा 171 ज०नव० अ० कके अन्तररत उ्ቈरवाधधिकवार कवा ननिम्नि आदकेश पवाररत नकरवा जवातवा हहै। अतत आदकेश नदरवा जवातवा हहै नक भभूनम गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर पररनिवा व तहसहील सण्डहीलवा ककी खततौनिही वरर 1407 सके 1412 फ० ककी खवातवा साሪ० 821 रवाटवा साሪ० 855/1.364. 860/1.741 1323/1.118 भभू रवाजस्व 93=80 सके बकदर नहस्सवा मकतक खवातकेदवार शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार पतुत रवामलवाल ननिववासही गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर कवा निवाम पकरक कर उसकके स्रवानि पर शहीमतही नकन्दवारवा पत्निही स्व० शहैलकेन््ቖ कतु मवार ननिववासही गवाम धसकन्दरपतुर कवा निवाम ज०नव०अ० ककी धिवारवा 171 कके अन्तररत बततौर उ्ቈरवाधधिकवारही दरवाधधिकवाररणही अाሪनकत नकरवा जवारके। पतवावलही बवाद अमलदरवामद साሪनचत अनभलकेखवारवार ककी जवारके।" (ii) After order dated 25.07.2005, quoted above, Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, executed sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (iii) After aforesaid order dated 25.07.2005 the petitioner preferred an application for recall of order dated 25.07.2005. This application was allowed vide order dated 26.06.2008 by the Tehsildar, Sandila, District- Hardoi. (iv) Vide order dated 26.06.2008 the Tehsildar declared the sale deed dated

06.05.2008 as void document. In mutation proceeding the sale deed cannot be declared as void document. (v) The order dated 26.06.2008 was set aside vide order dated 15.12.2015 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in Revision No.1379/2009-2010 (Smt. Kindara & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) under Section 219 of the Act

1901. (vi) A perusal of the order dated 15.12.2015 indicates that the Revisional Authority considered the various aspects of the case including the fact that the order dated 25.07.2005 was passed on the basis of compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties namely Beerendra, petitioner herein, and the real sister-in-law of the petitioner namely Kindara widow of Shailendra. (vii) It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the application for recall of order dated 27.05.2005 passed in the mutation case was filed by the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Kindara, sister-in-law of the petitioner, solemnized marriage after death of his brother. However, the Tehsildar in absence of proof of marriage recalled the order dated 27.05.2005 which was favourable to Smt. Kindara who after this order sold the property vide sale deed dated 06.05.2008. (viii) Record also indicates that the petitioner had already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 that was executed by Smt. Kindara which is pending as O.S. No.1553 of 2024 (Beerendra Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar & others). (ix) It is to be noted that in the suit aforesaid Smt. Kindara has not been impleaded as defendant.

10. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also that the dispute in issue i.e. genuineness/validity of sale deed dated 06.05.2008 could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and not in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the regular suit for his rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned court would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench