State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

6. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, the question to be decided by the competent authority is limited only with regard to the person who would be paying the revenue to the government and his name is entered in the revenue records and does not extent to the declaration of the right, interest or title of any person. It is also the consistent view of this Court that this Court would not ordinarily entertain any writ petition deciding the aforesaid question arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code and such person if he seeks a declaration of the right, interest and title in the said property would be entitled to file a suit for declaration before the court of competent jurisdiction where he will be able to adduce evidence which can be appreciated by the competent court pursuant to which his rights may be decided.

7. 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 3 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 determine the title of the parties."

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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 4 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court."

11. 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)."

12. 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.''

13. 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 5 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 such a presumption is rebuttable?''

14. 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, (1989) 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.''

15. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (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?" 6 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025

16. 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 reiterated in the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial 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?"

17. 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.

17. 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 7 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 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,

6. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that in proceedings U/S 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, the question to be decided by the competent authority is limited only with regard to the person who would be paying the revenue to the government and his name is entered in the revenue records and does not extent to the declaration of the right, interest or title of any person. It is also the consistent view of this Court that this Court would not ordinarily entertain any writ petition deciding the aforesaid question arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code and such person if he seeks a declaration of the right, interest and title in the said property would be entitled to file a suit for declaration before the court of competent jurisdiction where he will be able to adduce evidence which can be appreciated by the competent court pursuant to which his rights may be decided.

7. 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 3 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 determine the title of the parties."

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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 4 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court."

11. 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)."

12. 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.''

13. 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 5 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 such a presumption is rebuttable?''

14. 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, (1989) 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.''

15. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (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?" 6 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025

16. 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 reiterated in the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial 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?"

17. 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.

17. 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 7 WRIC No. 11824 of 2025 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,