Sitaram Verma v. Savitri Devi), which was decided on

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 5 and Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav for respondent No.6.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. The dispute raised by the petitioners in the present case pertains to the property of Khata No.s 439, 440 and 441 of Village Fatehpur Mohibpur, Khata No.217 of Village Bangaon, Khata No.399 of Village Bhitaura Uttar and Khata No.405 of Village Rukunpur Kasimpur, all situated in Tehsil-Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

4. It has been submitted that the aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi wife of late Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and Savitri Devi died on 1.7.2013. It has been submitted that Savitri Devi had one daughter namely Jaleshwari Singh and one son namely Lal Ratnakar Singh. It has been submitted that Lal Ratnakar died on 20.8.2005 and was survived by his wife and son Pramendra Pratap Singh who was the grandson of Sm. Savitri Devi. It has been submitted that on

12.7.1999 Savitri Devi had executed a will in favour of her son Lal Ratnakar and it is on the basis of the said will dated 12.7.1999 that he had moved an application for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It has been submitted that subsequently another will was executed by Savitri Devi in favour of Jaleshwari Devi on 22.8.2005. It has been submitted that Jaleshwari Devi moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code before Tehsildar, who after issuing notices to all the parties rejected the claim of Jaleshwari Devi and allowed the objections filed by Pramendra Pratap Singh and directed the land to be recorded in the name of Pramendra Pratap Singh and 2 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 others. While passing the said order the Tehsildar had taken cognizance of the fact that some suit proceedings were also initiated with regard to aforesaid dispute before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad in Civil Suit No.374 of 1997 (Sitaram Verma VS. Savitri Devi), which was decided on 28.7.1999 on the

basis of an agreement entered into by the parties. He further took into account the fact that the said order dated 28.7.1999 had become final in as much as no further appeal or revision was preferred against the said order. He further considered the arguments of the petitioners specifically the ground that the private respondents had filed a suit assailing the will of the petitioner but the said suit was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 31.1.2017 and after considering the aforesaid facts placed reliance on the will executed in favour of the respondents and accordingly had rejected the claim of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners thereafter had filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate which was also dismissed on 9.9.2021. The revision was subsequently preferred before Additional Commissioner (Administration), which was allowed by means of order date 26.9.2022 and the order of the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted to Tehsildar, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar for consideration afresh after hearing all the parties.

6. The respondents thereafter being aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 29.9.2025 had set aside the order dated 26.9.2022 and while allowing the revision in sum and substance the remand order issued by Additional Commissioner (Administration) has been set aside and now the dispute stands resolved in favour of the private respondents. Assailing the said order the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of the property which was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi. Undisputed facts in the present case are that Savitri Devi had executed two will deeds, one on 12.7.1999 in favour of her son Lal Ratnakar while the other will was executed on 22.8.2005 in favour of Jaleshwari Devi i.e. the petitioners. These parties are contesting with regard to validity of the said wills.

8. The revenue authorities confronted with the aforesaid dispute have passed order in favour of the respondents holding that Tehsildar had returned a finding in favour of Lal Ratnakar and upheld the will dated 12.7.1999 and did not uphold the will of the petitioner holding that the same was suspicious. Now in the 3 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 present case, it has been vehemently urged that the orders impugned are illegal and arbitrary and the will in favour of the petitioners i.e. the will dated

22.8.2005 is the valid will and order for mutation should have been passed in favour of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that in case there are two wills existing then it is subsequent will which will precede the previous will. On this ground it was submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to he set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the writ petition would not be maintainable in as much as the said proceedings have been initiated on the basis of an application under Section 34 of U. P. Revenue Code and the proceedings are summary in nature. The purpose of passing orders under Section 34 is limited only with regard to the person who would be liable to pay revenue to the government and do not extend to declaration of right, title and interest of any person in the said property. It was submitted that in case any person wants to contest the said order and claims right, title or interest in the said property then the only forum in this regard would be to file a suit for declaration before the court of competent jurisdiction and obtain such a decree.

10. After hearing the rival contentions, it is noticed that there are several disputed questions of facts with regard to validity of the two wills dated 12.7.1999 as well as 22.8.2005. To consider the facts with regard validity of the will deeds evidence will have to be led by the parties in case they wish to prove the will and in the said proceedings the parties have right to cross examine the witnesses and lead evidence. This can be done only in regular suit proceedings and not in summary proceedings under Section 34 of U.P.Revenue Code.

11. 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. In the case of Smt. Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others 2022 (4) ADJ 578 it has been held as under:- "6. 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.

7. 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 4 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 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…"

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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 5 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 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."

12. 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 Import and Export Company & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191, placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh11 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka, (2009) 5 SCC 591. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:- "6. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka)."

13. Reference may also be had to the judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12, wherein it was held that the revenue authorities cannot decide questions of title and that mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The observations made in this regard are as follows:- ''45. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense... It is well-settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title.''

14. A similar observation was made in Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736, wherein it was held as follows:- ''19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable…''

15. In Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 269, the principle that entries in revenue records do not confer any title was reiterated and referring to the previous decisions in Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, and H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (19896) 11 SCC 257, it was stated thus :- "21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah this Court held that: (SCC p. 615, para 5) ''5. ...It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law.'' In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand this Court has held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2) ''2. ...that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.'' In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram this Court held that: (SCC p. 259, para 5) "'5. ...an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.''

16. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur 6 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 (Smt.) and others, (1996) 6 SCC 223. and it was observed that the mutation of name in the revenue records does not have the effect of creating or extinguishing the title nor has any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person concerned to pay land revenue. It was stated thus :- "7...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…"

17. The principle that an entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and title to the property can only be decided by a competent civil court was the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial reiterated Commissioner and others, (2007) 6 SCC 186, and it was stated as follows :- "9...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…"

18. The legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 (DB), and Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others, 2020 (146) RD 545 and it was restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

19. 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 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."

20. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such 7 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :- (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries; (v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court."

12. It is in aforesaid circumstances that we find that there are several disputed questions of facts which can be adjudicated only where the parties can lead evidence in this regard.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is urgency in the matter as the property is being alienated by the respondents. Accordingly, it is provided that in case suit in this regard is instituted within next two weeks before the court of competent jurisdiction along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Rule 4 and 6 of U. P. Revenue Code, the trial court shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law with expedition say within a period of four weeks from the date it is filed. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed by this court, the trial court shall consider passing an ad-interim injunction in case the facts are so made out in accordance with law.

14. It has been submitted that right and interests of the petitioners were protected in the revisional proceedings and accordingly for a maximum period of two weeks from today, the parties are restrained from alienating the disputed property. It is made clear that the interim protection granted by this Court shall come to an end on the trial passing appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner within the time prescribed by this Court.

15. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. November 25, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

basis of an agreement entered into by the parties. He further took into account the fact that the said order dated 28.7.1999 had become final in as much as no further appeal or revision was preferred against the said order. He further considered the arguments of the petitioners specifically the ground that the private respondents had filed a suit assailing the will of the petitioner but the said suit was dismissed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambedkar Nagar vide order dated 31.1.2017 and after considering the aforesaid facts placed reliance on the will executed in favour of the respondents and accordingly had rejected the claim of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners thereafter had filed an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate which was also dismissed on 9.9.2021. The revision was subsequently preferred before Additional Commissioner (Administration), which was allowed by means of order date 26.9.2022 and the order of the Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remitted to Tehsildar, Tehsil Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar for consideration afresh after hearing all the parties.

6. The respondents thereafter being aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 29.9.2025 had set aside the order dated 26.9.2022 and while allowing the revision in sum and substance the remand order issued by Additional Commissioner (Administration) has been set aside and now the dispute stands resolved in favour of the private respondents. Assailing the said order the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of the property which was recorded in the name of Savitri Devi. Undisputed facts in the present case are that Savitri Devi had executed two will deeds, one on 12.7.1999 in favour of her son Lal Ratnakar while the other will was executed on 22.8.2005 in favour of Jaleshwari Devi i.e. the petitioners. These parties are contesting with regard to validity of the said wills.

8. The revenue authorities confronted with the aforesaid dispute have passed order in favour of the respondents holding that Tehsildar had returned a finding in favour of Lal Ratnakar and upheld the will dated 12.7.1999 and did not uphold the will of the petitioner holding that the same was suspicious. Now in the 3 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 present case, it has been vehemently urged that the orders impugned are illegal and arbitrary and the will in favour of the petitioners i.e. the will dated

22.8.2005 is the valid will and order for mutation should have been passed in favour of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that in case there are two wills existing then it is subsequent will which will precede the previous will. On this ground it was submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to he set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the writ petition would not be maintainable in as much as the said proceedings have been initiated on the basis of an application under Section 34 of U. P. Revenue Code and the proceedings are summary in nature. The purpose of passing orders under Section 34 is limited only with regard to the person who would be liable to pay revenue to the government and do not extend to declaration of right, title and interest of any person in the said property. It was submitted that in case any person wants to contest the said order and claims right, title or interest in the said property then the only forum in this regard would be to file a suit for declaration before the court of competent jurisdiction and obtain such a decree.

10. After hearing the rival contentions, it is noticed that there are several disputed questions of facts with regard to validity of the two wills dated 12.7.1999 as well as 22.8.2005. To consider the facts with regard validity of the will deeds evidence will have to be led by the parties in case they wish to prove the will and in the said proceedings the parties have right to cross examine the witnesses and lead evidence. This can be done only in regular suit proceedings and not in summary proceedings under Section 34 of U.P.Revenue Code.

11. 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. In the case of Smt. Kalawati versus Board of Revenue and others 2022 (4) ADJ 578 it has been held as under:- "6. 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.

7. 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 4 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 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…"

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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.

11. 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 5 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 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."

12. 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 Import and Export Company & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191, placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh11 and Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka, (2009) 5 SCC 591. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:- "6. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka)."

13. Reference may also be had to the judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12, wherein it was held that the revenue authorities cannot decide questions of title and that mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The observations made in this regard are as follows:- ''45. Revenue authorities of the State are concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be operating in a limited sense... It is well-settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a question of title.''

14. A similar observation was made in Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736, wherein it was held as follows:- ''19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable…''

15. In Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 269, the principle that entries in revenue records do not confer any title was reiterated and referring to the previous decisions in Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah, (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, and H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (19896) 11 SCC 257, it was stated thus :- "21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah this Court held that: (SCC p. 615, para 5) ''5. ...It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law.'' In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand this Court has held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2) ''2. ...that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.'' In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram this Court held that: (SCC p. 259, para 5) "'5. ...an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.''

16. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur 6 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 (Smt.) and others, (1996) 6 SCC 223. and it was observed that the mutation of name in the revenue records does not have the effect of creating or extinguishing the title nor has any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person concerned to pay land revenue. It was stated thus :- "7...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…"

17. The principle that an entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and title to the property can only be decided by a competent civil court was the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial reiterated Commissioner and others, (2007) 6 SCC 186, and it was stated as follows :- "9...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…"

18. The legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (5) ADJ 212 (DB), and Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others, 2020 (146) RD 545 and it was restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

19. 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 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."

20. The mutation proceedings being of a summary nature drawn on the basis of possession do not decide any question of title and the orders passed in such 7 WRIB No. 1067 of 2025 proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :- (i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided; (ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; (iii) they neither extinguish nor create title; (iv) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries; (v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court."

12. It is in aforesaid circumstances that we find that there are several disputed questions of facts which can be adjudicated only where the parties can lead evidence in this regard.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is urgency in the matter as the property is being alienated by the respondents. Accordingly, it is provided that in case suit in this regard is instituted within next two weeks before the court of competent jurisdiction along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with Rule 4 and 6 of U. P. Revenue Code, the trial court shall proceed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law with expedition say within a period of four weeks from the date it is filed. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed by this court, the trial court shall consider passing an ad-interim injunction in case the facts are so made out in accordance with law.

14. It has been submitted that right and interests of the petitioners were protected in the revisional proceedings and accordingly for a maximum period of two weeks from today, the parties are restrained from alienating the disputed property. It is made clear that the interim protection granted by this Court shall come to an end on the trial passing appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner within the time prescribed by this Court.

15. With aforesaid observations and directions the petition stands disposed of. November 25, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench