Mohammad Mustahsan vs Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Judicial

1. Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Diwakar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent no. 3 is dispensed with.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for mutation of the property which was initially recorded in the name of Jahooran. According to the petitioner Jahooran had seven daughters out of which one daughter has died during her life time and she survived with six daughters including Momina Khatoon, who is the mother of the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was given by one of the daughters namely Asfa Khatoon, who was the youngest of all the daughters. Entire property came to be recorded in the name of Asfa Khatoon by means of order dated 30.04.2016.

5. It is next submitted that on coming to know about order dated 30.04.2016, petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order after lapse of more than four and half years on 31.12.2020. The said application was rejected on 07.09.2022, as no one appeared to press the said application. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue had taken into consideration the fact that application or recall was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and in absence of any such application, huge delay of four and half years could not have been condoned in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Apart from which the Board of Revenue further observed that satisfactory explanation has to be provided 2 WRIB No. 1053 of 2025 in the application for condonation of delay and in absence of any such application, application for recall of order dated 30.04.2016, itself was not maintainable and accordingly has dismissed the revision of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated 30.04.2016 itself is illegal and arbitrary considering the fact that recorded tenure holder was survived by six daughters and only one daughter and entire property cannot be recorded in her name. As per reasons given by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner could not dispute the said fact and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any reason or ground for interfering in the said order.

7. Apart from the above, this Court finds that ordinarily no writ petition is maintainable under Section 34 of the Revenue Code, 2006 inasmuch as such proceedings are only with regard to determination of the persons who would be responsible for paying revenue to the State Government and such an order does not confer any right, interest or title over the disputed land. In case any person seeks to secure his/her rights then remedy lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where such declaration can be sought.

8. The settled legal position that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and that such entries are only for "fiscal purpose" and no ownership is conferred on the basis thereof and further that the question of title of a property can only be decided by a competent civil court has again been restated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, wherein after referring to the previous authorities on the point in Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma Vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58, Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin14, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of J & K, (2008) 9 SCC 368, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689, T Ravi Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342, Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191, Prahlad Pradhar Vs. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 and Ajit Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70, it was observed thus :- "8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. 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. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder 3 WRIB No. 1053 of 2025 Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

9. In the light of above, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for declaration, if she is so advised. November 21, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Diwakar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent no. 3 is dispensed with.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for mutation of the property which was initially recorded in the name of Jahooran. According to the petitioner Jahooran had seven daughters out of which one daughter has died during her life time and she survived with six daughters including Momina Khatoon, who is the mother of the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was given by one of the daughters namely Asfa Khatoon, who was the youngest of all the daughters. Entire property came to be recorded in the name of Asfa Khatoon by means of order dated 30.04.2016.

5. It is next submitted that on coming to know about order dated 30.04.2016, petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order after lapse of more than four and half years on 31.12.2020. The said application was rejected on 07.09.2022, as no one appeared to press the said application. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue had taken into consideration the fact that application or recall was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay and in absence of any such application, huge delay of four and half years could not have been condoned in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Apart from which the Board of Revenue further observed that satisfactory explanation has to be provided 2 WRIB No. 1053 of 2025 in the application for condonation of delay and in absence of any such application, application for recall of order dated 30.04.2016, itself was not maintainable and accordingly has dismissed the revision of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated 30.04.2016 itself is illegal and arbitrary considering the fact that recorded tenure holder was survived by six daughters and only one daughter and entire property cannot be recorded in her name. As per reasons given by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner could not dispute the said fact and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court do not find any reason or ground for interfering in the said order.

7. Apart from the above, this Court finds that ordinarily no writ petition is maintainable under Section 34 of the Revenue Code, 2006 inasmuch as such proceedings are only with regard to determination of the persons who would be responsible for paying revenue to the State Government and such an order does not confer any right, interest or title over the disputed land. In case any person seeks to secure his/her rights then remedy lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where such declaration can be sought.

8. The settled legal position that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and that such entries are only for "fiscal purpose" and no ownership is conferred on the basis thereof and further that the question of title of a property can only be decided by a competent civil court has again been restated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, wherein after referring to the previous authorities on the point in Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, Suman Verma Vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58, Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin14, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of J & K, (2008) 9 SCC 368, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689, T Ravi Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342, Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191, Prahlad Pradhar Vs. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 and Ajit Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70, it was observed thus :- "8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. 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. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder 3 WRIB No. 1053 of 2025 Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

9. In the light of above, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

10. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for declaration, if she is so advised. November 21, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench