Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and Sri Virendra Prakash Pandey and Sri Prashant Pandey who have filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 3 and 4.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to succession of the property of khasra No.s 225/0.5310, 228/0.4300, 230/0.3160 hectare situated in Village Rasoolpur Ithuria, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow which was owned by recorded tenure holder, namely Ram Gopal. An application for mutation was filed before Tehsildar by Janak Dulari, mother in law of Ram Gopal and mother of Smt. Vimla. During the said proceedings Smt. Vimla wife of Ram Gopal had also put in appearance and stated that she is the wife of deceased Ram Gopal. it has been stated that it is the statement of Vimla Devi was to the effect that there was some sort of settlement in the Family Court and the case was taken back. In the said proceedings another lady, namely Krishnawati had also put in appearance an also claimed herself to be the wife of Ram Gopal and also submitted documents in this regard. It was stated by Smt. Krishnawati that Ram Gopal had two wives,namely Vimla Devi and Krishnawati and stated that she was, in fact, the legally wedded wife of Ram Gopal.

3. Considering the evidence on record Naib Tehsildar by means of order dead

2.7.2013 directed the land to be recorded in the name of Vimla Devi wife or Ram Gopal and accordingly rejected the claim of Krishnawati.

4. Against the order dated 2.7.2013 Private respondents had filed a revision before Board of Revenue. It is in the proceedings before Board of Revenue that the application for impleadment was given by the petitioner stating that petitioner No. 1 is the mother of Vimla and petitioner No.2 is her brother. It was contended that Vimla Devi and Ram Gopal had one son namely Rahul who also died and there being no legal heir claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Ram Gopal and sought 2 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025 impleadment.

5. Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 has rejected the application of the petitioner and so he has gone into entire factual matrix of the case and considered as to whether Vimla Devi was the only wife of Ram Gopal or that he had two wives, namely Krishnawati also. This aspect of the matter was concluded by Board of Revenue who appreciated the contention of the petitioners that Ram Gopal did not have any other legal heir and, therefore, whether the petitioners can be substituted as legal heirs of Ram Gopal. After considering the entire evidence, the Board of Revenue has rejected the application after returning a finding that apart form Vimla Devi Krishnawati was also the wife of Ram Gopal.

6. During the proceedings on behalf of Krishnawati he had considered the records pertaining to the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lucknow where the deceased Ram Gopal was an employee and evidence for treatment of Krishnawati and her children was being conducted by the authority being the wife of and children of Ram Gopal and consequently under the aforesaid circumstances did not find any merits in the application for substitution. Accordingly, it is in aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking impleadment in the proceedings under Section 34.

7. To decide the controversy the findings will have to be returned with regard to existence of two wives of Ram Gopal, namely, Vimla and Krishnawati. It is further noticed that in the present petition the question for consideration is under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code which are limited only to change the revenue records and to determine a person who will be liable to pay revenue to the State government and does not extend to the nature of determination of a right, title or interest in any disputed property. If a person wants to seek order declaring him/her to be the owner of a particular property then he/she is mandated to initiate regular proceedings which are civil courts and seek declaration in this regard.

8. The consistent view of this Court is that proceedings under Section 34 is summary in nature and accordingly the present dispute can be appropriately dealt with by a civil court where the petitioners and the other interested persons would be at liberty to adduce evidence. Further, 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.

10. 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 3 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025 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 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 4 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025

1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 and Sri Virendra Prakash Pandey and Sri Prashant Pandey who have filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 3 and 4.

2. The dispute in the present case pertains to succession of the property of khasra No.s 225/0.5310, 228/0.4300, 230/0.3160 hectare situated in Village Rasoolpur Ithuria, Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow which was owned by recorded tenure holder, namely Ram Gopal. An application for mutation was filed before Tehsildar by Janak Dulari, mother in law of Ram Gopal and mother of Smt. Vimla. During the said proceedings Smt. Vimla wife of Ram Gopal had also put in appearance and stated that she is the wife of deceased Ram Gopal. it has been stated that it is the statement of Vimla Devi was to the effect that there was some sort of settlement in the Family Court and the case was taken back. In the said proceedings another lady, namely Krishnawati had also put in appearance an also claimed herself to be the wife of Ram Gopal and also submitted documents in this regard. It was stated by Smt. Krishnawati that Ram Gopal had two wives,namely Vimla Devi and Krishnawati and stated that she was, in fact, the legally wedded wife of Ram Gopal.

3. Considering the evidence on record Naib Tehsildar by means of order dead

2.7.2013 directed the land to be recorded in the name of Vimla Devi wife or Ram Gopal and accordingly rejected the claim of Krishnawati.

4. Against the order dated 2.7.2013 Private respondents had filed a revision before Board of Revenue. It is in the proceedings before Board of Revenue that the application for impleadment was given by the petitioner stating that petitioner No. 1 is the mother of Vimla and petitioner No.2 is her brother. It was contended that Vimla Devi and Ram Gopal had one son namely Rahul who also died and there being no legal heir claiming themselves to be legal heirs of Ram Gopal and sought 2 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025 impleadment.

5. Board of Revenue by means of the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 has rejected the application of the petitioner and so he has gone into entire factual matrix of the case and considered as to whether Vimla Devi was the only wife of Ram Gopal or that he had two wives, namely Krishnawati also. This aspect of the matter was concluded by Board of Revenue who appreciated the contention of the petitioners that Ram Gopal did not have any other legal heir and, therefore, whether the petitioners can be substituted as legal heirs of Ram Gopal. After considering the entire evidence, the Board of Revenue has rejected the application after returning a finding that apart form Vimla Devi Krishnawati was also the wife of Ram Gopal.

6. During the proceedings on behalf of Krishnawati he had considered the records pertaining to the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lucknow where the deceased Ram Gopal was an employee and evidence for treatment of Krishnawati and her children was being conducted by the authority being the wife of and children of Ram Gopal and consequently under the aforesaid circumstances did not find any merits in the application for substitution. Accordingly, it is in aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed seeking impleadment in the proceedings under Section 34.

7. To decide the controversy the findings will have to be returned with regard to existence of two wives of Ram Gopal, namely, Vimla and Krishnawati. It is further noticed that in the present petition the question for consideration is under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code which are limited only to change the revenue records and to determine a person who will be liable to pay revenue to the State government and does not extend to the nature of determination of a right, title or interest in any disputed property. If a person wants to seek order declaring him/her to be the owner of a particular property then he/she is mandated to initiate regular proceedings which are civil courts and seek declaration in this regard.

8. The consistent view of this Court is that proceedings under Section 34 is summary in nature and accordingly the present dispute can be appropriately dealt with by a civil court where the petitioners and the other interested persons would be at liberty to adduce evidence. Further, 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.

10. 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 3 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025 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 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 4 WRIB No. 1214 of 2025