High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.12.2005 passed by Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur, District Pilibhit as well as order dated 04.11.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Board of Revenue.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Bari Bhujiya, Post Kajari Niranjanpur, Tehsil Puranpur, District Pilibhit wherein his ancestral property including the land existed in Khata no. 0066 gata no. 186 admeasuring area 2.214 hectare. With regard to the said land it seems that a report was submitted by the revenue authorities to the effect that the entry has been made in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioner in a fraudulent manner and no records are existing and therefore the said entries deserves to be corrected.

4. On the basis of the said report, a case was instituted by the State against the father of the petitioner and others U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The said matter attained finality by passing of the order dated 31.12.2005 where it was recorded that in gata no. 186 M, area 9-47 hect. is recorded in C.H. Form-45 as a Navin Parti for the fasli year 1412-1417 while in Khata No 66 Gata No. 166 M area 2.214 hect are name of Resham Singh and Balbinder Singh have been registered as Asami and also they are paying revenues on the basis of aforesaid entries but as per the report of the Tehsildar there is no order correlating to the entries made in the revenue records in relation to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur found the said report deserves to be corrected and held that the entries made in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner were fabricated and forged and according allowed the application of the State deleting the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and instead recording the land in the name of the gaon sabha and directing the authorities to make necessary corrections in the revenue records.

5. Against the order dated 31.12.2005 the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly. It was stated submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entries in their favour are long standing entries and such entries cannot be disturbed in the manner they have been done in exercise of powers U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The revenue authorities also rejected the contention of the petitioners and found that no cogent material was placed by the petitioners in support of their contentions and upheld the order of the Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur.

6. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings, another revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue and on the ground of maintainability the said revision has been rejected on 26.06.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted that he does not wish to challenge the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by Board of Revenue inasmuch as there is no dispute that the said revision was filed on wrong legal advise by the petitioner,. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the contentions raised by him before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly were adequately considered and the revision was rejected without making any further inquiry with regard to records pertaining to the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that either before the competent authority i.e. Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur or before the Additional Commissioner (Administrator) in revision the petitioner was not able to produce any documents in support of his contentions that the land was allotted to him or the mutation was carried out on the basis of any order passed by the competent authority. He submits that the mutation entries had been fraudulently recorded as has been held in the order dated 31.12.2005 passed by Pargana Adhikar and upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) in his order dated 04.11.2008. He further submits that in present dispute only the matter pertaining to correction of revenue record and whose name would be entitled to be recorded in the revenue records has been challenged before this Court. He submits that in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors (Writ B No. 295 of 2022) after considering the various judgments, this Court was of the view that petitions pertaining to amendment in the revenue records through mutation proceedings, a writ petition would not be entertained inasmuch as the dispute in such cases relate only to the person who would be entitled to pay the revenue and do not decide the title of the individual. He submits that in case any of the parties is to establish his title on the disputed land then the adequate remedy to file a suit for declaration before the competent court and adduce evidence to the effect and seek a declaration. Accordingly, he submits that present writ petition would not be maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand opposing the said plea has submitted that in the present case the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on account of the fact that there is no order on the basis of which the entry has been made in favour of the petitioner is existing and consequently the entry made in favour of the petitioner is forged and cannot be relied upon.

9. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is a serious disputed question of fact and both the authorities below have passed the orders relying upon the report submitted by the revenue authorities. Considering the aforesaid contentions, this Court does not find that the claim of the petitioner falls into any of the exceptions which has been held in the case of Kalawati (Supra) where the petitions would be entertainable. This Court finds that before the revisional authority the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing and in fact the revision was filed by the petitioner himself.

10. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the Additional Commissioner (Administration) inasmuch as he has rejected the contention of the petitioner in light of the fact that no material was adduced by him in support of his contentions while on the other hand the case of the State was based on the basis a report submitted by the revenue authorities, accordingly, in this light this Court does not find any error necessitating interference by this Court nor the case of the petitioner covered by any exception in the said application. In light of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner in case seeks to contest the matter for which he can seek a declaration before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

8. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 5.8.2025/Ravi/

1. Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.12.2005 passed by Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur, District Pilibhit as well as order dated 04.11.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Board of Revenue.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Bari Bhujiya, Post Kajari Niranjanpur, Tehsil Puranpur, District Pilibhit wherein his ancestral property including the land existed in Khata no. 0066 gata no. 186 admeasuring area 2.214 hectare. With regard to the said land it seems that a report was submitted by the revenue authorities to the effect that the entry has been made in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioner in a fraudulent manner and no records are existing and therefore the said entries deserves to be corrected.

4. On the basis of the said report, a case was instituted by the State against the father of the petitioner and others U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The said matter attained finality by passing of the order dated 31.12.2005 where it was recorded that in gata no. 186 M, area 9-47 hect. is recorded in C.H. Form-45 as a Navin Parti for the fasli year 1412-1417 while in Khata No 66 Gata No. 166 M area 2.214 hect are name of Resham Singh and Balbinder Singh have been registered as Asami and also they are paying revenues on the basis of aforesaid entries but as per the report of the Tehsildar there is no order correlating to the entries made in the revenue records in relation to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur found the said report deserves to be corrected and held that the entries made in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner were fabricated and forged and according allowed the application of the State deleting the name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and instead recording the land in the name of the gaon sabha and directing the authorities to make necessary corrections in the revenue records.

5. Against the order dated 31.12.2005 the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly. It was stated submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the entries in their favour are long standing entries and such entries cannot be disturbed in the manner they have been done in exercise of powers U/S 33/39 of Land Revenue Act. The revenue authorities also rejected the contention of the petitioners and found that no cogent material was placed by the petitioners in support of their contentions and upheld the order of the Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur.

6. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the revisional proceedings, another revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue and on the ground of maintainability the said revision has been rejected on 26.06.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has fairly submitted that he does not wish to challenge the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by Board of Revenue inasmuch as there is no dispute that the said revision was filed on wrong legal advise by the petitioner,. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the contentions raised by him before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly were adequately considered and the revision was rejected without making any further inquiry with regard to records pertaining to the petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that either before the competent authority i.e. Pargana Adhikari, Puranpur or before the Additional Commissioner (Administrator) in revision the petitioner was not able to produce any documents in support of his contentions that the land was allotted to him or the mutation was carried out on the basis of any order passed by the competent authority. He submits that the mutation entries had been fraudulently recorded as has been held in the order dated 31.12.2005 passed by Pargana Adhikar and upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) in his order dated 04.11.2008. He further submits that in present dispute only the matter pertaining to correction of revenue record and whose name would be entitled to be recorded in the revenue records has been challenged before this Court. He submits that in the case of Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors (Writ B No. 295 of 2022) after considering the various judgments, this Court was of the view that petitions pertaining to amendment in the revenue records through mutation proceedings, a writ petition would not be entertained inasmuch as the dispute in such cases relate only to the person who would be entitled to pay the revenue and do not decide the title of the individual. He submits that in case any of the parties is to establish his title on the disputed land then the adequate remedy to file a suit for declaration before the competent court and adduce evidence to the effect and seek a declaration. Accordingly, he submits that present writ petition would not be maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand opposing the said plea has submitted that in the present case the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on account of the fact that there is no order on the basis of which the entry has been made in favour of the petitioner is existing and consequently the entry made in favour of the petitioner is forged and cannot be relied upon.

9. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is a serious disputed question of fact and both the authorities below have passed the orders relying upon the report submitted by the revenue authorities. Considering the aforesaid contentions, this Court does not find that the claim of the petitioner falls into any of the exceptions which has been held in the case of Kalawati (Supra) where the petitions would be entertainable. This Court finds that before the revisional authority the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing and in fact the revision was filed by the petitioner himself.

10. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the Additional Commissioner (Administration) inasmuch as he has rejected the contention of the petitioner in light of the fact that no material was adduced by him in support of his contentions while on the other hand the case of the State was based on the basis a report submitted by the revenue authorities, accordingly, in this light this Court does not find any error necessitating interference by this Court nor the case of the petitioner covered by any exception in the said application. In light of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner in case seeks to contest the matter for which he can seek a declaration before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

8. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Order Date :- 5.8.2025/Ravi/