Sumitra Devi v. Ram Naresh) and order dated

the petitioner, namely, Smt. Sumitra Devi was recorded in proceedings P.Ka-11. It has been submitted that on the basis of a registered Will Deed dated 15.04.1993 an application was filed by Ram Naresh son of Ashrafi under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of the said land in his favour. The objections were filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Ram Naresh, by means of the order dated 3.3.2000. Against the order dated 3.3.2000 Smt. Sumitra Devi had filed an appeal before the 2 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was dismissed on 31.3.2003 and subsequently a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was dismissed on

28.6.2025.

4. The petitioner thereafter had moved an application for recall of the order dated 28.6.2025 stating that during the pendency of the proceedings Smt. Sumitra Devi had died some time in 2012 and therefore the revisional order was passed against the dead person. The application for recall was also rejected, by means of the order dated 30.9.2025 holding that it is the revisionist who had failed to disclose the death and permitted the proceedings to continue and also noticed the provision of Order 22 Rule 10-A of C.P.C. wherein it is provided that duty of the pleader to communicate the death of the party and the death had been taken place more than 7 to 8 years back, the revisional court did not find any ground for allowing the application and rejected the same. The petitioner has assailed all the aforesaid order before this Court.

5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the writ petition assailing the order in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue code would not be maintainable, in as much as the purpose of mutation in the revenue records is only for the purposes of pay revenue to the government and does not relate to right, interest or title of any person. It is stated that in case any person wants to hold himself to be the rightful owner of any property, then he has an efficacious remedy of filing a regular suit in a competent jurisdiction.

6. The dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of the property in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which are summary proceedings to determine as to the person who is liable to pay land revenue to the authorities. The law in this regard is also clear in as much as any order passed under Section 34 does not confer right, interest or title in the disputed land. It is consistent view of this Court that against the proceedings under Section 34, no writ petition is maintainable and the remedy, if any, in such a dispute where any person wants to assert his right interest or title, it is for the party to obtain an appropriate decree or declaration from the court of civil jurisdiction. 3 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025

7. I further find that there is highly disputed question between the parties pertaining the status of each other and that issue shall be decided only by adducing adequate evidence before the civil court. I further find that the appellate court has correctly noticed the stage of dispute and also that like of evidence adduced by the parties in the present case.

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 4 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 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 Import and Export Company & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191, placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant 5 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 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)."

14. 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.''

15. 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...''

16. 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,

the petitioner, namely, Smt. Sumitra Devi was recorded in proceedings P.Ka-11. It has been submitted that on the basis of a registered Will Deed dated 15.04.1993 an application was filed by Ram Naresh son of Ashrafi under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code for mutation of the said land in his favour. The objections were filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner and the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Ram Naresh, by means of the order dated 3.3.2000. Against the order dated 3.3.2000 Smt. Sumitra Devi had filed an appeal before the 2 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was dismissed on 31.3.2003 and subsequently a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was dismissed on

28.6.2025.

4. The petitioner thereafter had moved an application for recall of the order dated 28.6.2025 stating that during the pendency of the proceedings Smt. Sumitra Devi had died some time in 2012 and therefore the revisional order was passed against the dead person. The application for recall was also rejected, by means of the order dated 30.9.2025 holding that it is the revisionist who had failed to disclose the death and permitted the proceedings to continue and also noticed the provision of Order 22 Rule 10-A of C.P.C. wherein it is provided that duty of the pleader to communicate the death of the party and the death had been taken place more than 7 to 8 years back, the revisional court did not find any ground for allowing the application and rejected the same. The petitioner has assailed all the aforesaid order before this Court.

5. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the writ petition assailing the order in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue code would not be maintainable, in as much as the purpose of mutation in the revenue records is only for the purposes of pay revenue to the government and does not relate to right, interest or title of any person. It is stated that in case any person wants to hold himself to be the rightful owner of any property, then he has an efficacious remedy of filing a regular suit in a competent jurisdiction.

6. The dispute in the present case pertains to mutation of the property in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, which are summary proceedings to determine as to the person who is liable to pay land revenue to the authorities. The law in this regard is also clear in as much as any order passed under Section 34 does not confer right, interest or title in the disputed land. It is consistent view of this Court that against the proceedings under Section 34, no writ petition is maintainable and the remedy, if any, in such a dispute where any person wants to assert his right interest or title, it is for the party to obtain an appropriate decree or declaration from the court of civil jurisdiction. 3 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025

7. I further find that there is highly disputed question between the parties pertaining the status of each other and that issue shall be decided only by adducing adequate evidence before the civil court. I further find that the appellate court has correctly noticed the stage of dispute and also that like of evidence adduced by the parties in the present case.

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 4 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 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 Import and Export Company & Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 191, placing reliance upon earlier decisions in Balwant 5 WRIC No. 11173 of 2025 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)."

14. 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.''

15. 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...''

16. 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,