In the case of Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors. AIR

1. Heard Sri Dheerendra Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent no. 4 is dispensed with.

3. Present proceedings arise out of application for mutation proceedings where objections were filed by one Savitri Devi, pertaining to the property which was recorded in the name of Sardar S/o Maiku who was the recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 192, 346, 348, situated at Village - Sandila, Pargana - Maurawan, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao. Tehsildar, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao by means of order dated 03.03.2025, allowed the objections preferred by the private respondents, holding that after death of Sardar, the recorded tenure holder, land was recorded in the name of Ganga Dei W/o Sardar. After Ganga Dei, land was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi on the basis of will dated 14.09.1993. The Tehsildar was of the view that Savitri Devi was not daughter of Ganga Dei who was sister of Savitri and near relative of Sardar and Ganga Dei. As the petitioner could not establish any reasonable connection with Ganga Dei and Sardar, he disbelieved the will dated 14.09.1993, and hence rejected the claim of petitioner.

4. In the appeal preferred by Savitri Devi, where order of Tehsildar was upheld and no infirmity was found in the same. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged both the orders and has sought interference of this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present writ petition. He has submitted that in case present dispute has arisen out of mutation proceedings and is only relatable to the person who is liable to pay revenue and in case petitioner seeks declaration of title over the disputed land, then he has remedy to file civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and seek declaration in that regard.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings.

8. In the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors. AIR 1957 ALL 205, notice was taken of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with the orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue was whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:- "3. ...It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question…"

9. 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."

10. Reiterating a similar view in the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 20025 (1) AWC 498, it was stated that mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of parties and orders passed in the said proceedings are always subject to adjudication by the competent court and therefore a writ petition against an order in mutation proceedings would not be entertainable. It was observed as follows:- "11. ...The present writ petition arising out of the summary proceeding of mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in the mutation are always subject to adjudication by the competent court."

11. The settled legal position that orders of mutation are passed on the basis of possession and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided, ordinarily a writ petition would not be entertainable against such orders unless the same are found to be wholly without jurisdiction or have the effect of rendering findings which are contrary to title already decided by a competent court, was reiterated in the case of Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (1) ADJ 792.

12. Taking note of the nature and scope of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature and also the fact that orders in such proceedings are passed on the basis of possession of the parties and no substantive rights are decided, this Court in Buddh Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2012 (5) ADJ 266, restated the principle that ordinarily a writ petition in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings is not maintainable. It was observed as follows:- "7. 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."

13. 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

1. Heard Sri Dheerendra Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent no. 4 is dispensed with.

3. Present proceedings arise out of application for mutation proceedings where objections were filed by one Savitri Devi, pertaining to the property which was recorded in the name of Sardar S/o Maiku who was the recorded tenure holder of Gata Nos. 192, 346, 348, situated at Village - Sandila, Pargana - Maurawan, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao. Tehsildar, Tehsil - Purwa, District - Unnao by means of order dated 03.03.2025, allowed the objections preferred by the private respondents, holding that after death of Sardar, the recorded tenure holder, land was recorded in the name of Ganga Dei W/o Sardar. After Ganga Dei, land was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi on the basis of will dated 14.09.1993. The Tehsildar was of the view that Savitri Devi was not daughter of Ganga Dei who was sister of Savitri and near relative of Sardar and Ganga Dei. As the petitioner could not establish any reasonable connection with Ganga Dei and Sardar, he disbelieved the will dated 14.09.1993, and hence rejected the claim of petitioner.

4. In the appeal preferred by Savitri Devi, where order of Tehsildar was upheld and no infirmity was found in the same. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged both the orders and has sought interference of this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of present writ petition. He has submitted that in case present dispute has arisen out of mutation proceedings and is only relatable to the person who is liable to pay revenue and in case petitioner seeks declaration of title over the disputed land, then he has remedy to file civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and seek declaration in that regard.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come up before this Court earlier and it has consistently been held that normally the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction does not entertain writ petitions against such orders which arise out of summary proceedings.

8. In the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors. AIR 1957 ALL 205, notice was taken of the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with the orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue was whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The observations made in the judgment in this regard are as follows:- "3. ...It has however been the consistent practice of this Court not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title to the property in question…"

9. 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."

10. Reiterating a similar view in the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 20025 (1) AWC 498, it was stated that mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of parties and orders passed in the said proceedings are always subject to adjudication by the competent court and therefore a writ petition against an order in mutation proceedings would not be entertainable. It was observed as follows:- "11. ...The present writ petition arising out of the summary proceeding of mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in the mutation are always subject to adjudication by the competent court."

11. The settled legal position that orders of mutation are passed on the basis of possession and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided, ordinarily a writ petition would not be entertainable against such orders unless the same are found to be wholly without jurisdiction or have the effect of rendering findings which are contrary to title already decided by a competent court, was reiterated in the case of Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (1) ADJ 792.

12. Taking note of the nature and scope of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature and also the fact that orders in such proceedings are passed on the basis of possession of the parties and no substantive rights are decided, this Court in Buddh Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2012 (5) ADJ 266, restated the principle that ordinarily a writ petition in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings is not maintainable. It was observed as follows:- "7. 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."

13. 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