Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And Others vs Additional Commissioner ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42201 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6872 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6881 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh and Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6918 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Shri Ishwar Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3, Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the Gram Panchayat.
2. All the petitions are being decided by a common judgment considering that all the orders impugned are same and the parties are also the same.
3. The dispute in the aforesaid cases has been initiated in proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act where objections under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act were preferred by the predecessor in interest, namely, Radhey Shyam, who had opposed the mutation of the name of Ram Nath, the predecessor in interest of the private respondents.
4. The dispute in brief is that both the parties are claiming to be successor to the property of Kamta Prasad to be exclusion of each other. It has been submitted that on the death of Kamta Prasad, there were four properties in different villages and in all the four villages on the death of Kamta Prasad, the name of Radhey Shyam was mutated in his place. Ram Nath had filed his objections to the aforesaid order while he filed an appeal before the Tehsildar Ayodhya, District Ayodhya stating that Ram Nath was also the son of Kamta Prasad, who had left a registered Will in favour of his mother on 13.02.1987. All the authorities below have relied upon the registered Will in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Ram Nath and have returned the finding that he was also the son of Kamta Prasad and entitled to be mutated in the revenue records along with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner i.e. Radhey Shyam.
5. Before this Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Ambedkar Nagar, order dated 27.03.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aalapur, District Ambedkar Nagar and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.
6. Concurrent findings of the fact has been recorded by all the authorities below while on the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has assailed all the orders on various grounds.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the present proceedings are outcome of mutation proceedings which are only limited to the question as to who would be liable to pay the tax and such proceedings do not decide the right or title of the property. It is further stated that it is the settled legal provisions that the orders of mutation are passed on the basis of possession and since no substantial rights are decided, ordinarily, the writ petitions would not be entertainable against such order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not dispute the general law with regard to the maintainability of writ petitions against the order of mutation but submitted that certain exceptions have been carved out where the writ petitions would be maintainable and especially where the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or the order has been obtained fraudulently, would be certain matter where the writ petition would be entertainable and consequently submitted that the the present writ petitions would be maintainable.
9. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
10. From all the orders impugned, I find that the full opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by all the authorities. Accordingly, I do not find that the orders have been passed without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and accordingly, I do not agree with submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Apart from the above, the dispute is factual based on evidence and the parties would be at liberty to prove their cases and also to disprove the cases of the respondents in regular proceedings before the civil court where they can seek a decree or declaration with regard to the person, who would be entitled to succeed the property of Kamta Prasad.
11. 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."
12. Reiterating a similar view in the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 2002 (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."
13. 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.
14. 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."
15. 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)."
16. 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.''
17. 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...''
18. 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, (1996) 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.''
19. 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..."
20. 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..."
21. 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.
22. 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. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12, 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."
23. 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 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.
24. A question would however arise as to whether any exception can be carved out to the aforesaid settled position with regard to non-interference in matters arising out of mutation proceedings in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, and if so what would the facts and circumstances under which a writ petition may be entertained in such matters.
25. The circumstances which may persuade a Court for exercising writ jurisdiction to entertain a petition arising out of mutation proceedings were considered in a decision of this Court in Radhey Shyam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (7) ADJ 71, and it was observed as follows :-
"18. Although it is settled that mutation proceedings is fiscal in nature and the orders passed therein do not decide the right and title of the parties, therefore, the orders passed therein being summary in nature, writ petition would not be maintainable, but here in this case since there is jurisdictional error, therefore the writ petition would lie against such orders, where revisional court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. It may also be noticed that although the orders deciding the mutation case do not decide the right and title of the parties. The judgements rendered therein are not binding upon the Courts deciding the title of the matter but it may be kept in mind that the person whose name is recorded in the revenue record can transfer6 the land through registered sale deed, gift deed etc. In case the sale deed is executed only because of recording of name without there being any valid title, the remedy, for the aggrieved person would be to file a suit but for cancellation of sale deed, not for declaration of right which would consume a very long time and in the meantime even the nature of the land may be changed. Further, the possession would be enjoyed by the persons in whose favour an order of mutation has been passed or the transferee without there being any valid title and the person having valid title will become a looser (sic loser) for the years together and in some cases if the land has gone in the hands of mafia or musclemen, the rightful owner may not be able to get the fruit of litigation during his life time. These contingencies and situations of the cases, although, may not have legal weight but the factual matrix and the reality of the same cannot be brushed aside while entertaining writ petitions against the orders passed in mutation cases."
26. Similar observations were made in the case of Rudramani Shukla Vs. Subhash Kumar and others 2017 (3) ADJ 510, and it was stated thus :-
"17. Mutation proceedings are important proceedings as, entries based thereon in the record of rights (Khatauni) are presumed to be correct under section 35 of the Land Revenue Act 1901, as also Section 40 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, and practically all transaction are made after perusing such entries. No doubt in matters of sale the purchaser is required to make due inquiry with diligence as to the real owner and any dispute in respect thereof, but if the name is recorded in the revenue records, sale transaction etc. are easily made. True it is that revenue records are not documents of title by themselves and are for purposes of realisation of revenue, but in view of the presumption attached to them, especially in view of the contents of Khatauni as prescribed in Section 31 of the Revenue Code, 2006, their importance in practical terms hardly needs to be emphasised. It is easy to say that an aggrieved party may establish his title in regular proceedings but the fact is that such proceedings go on for years together, therefore, judicious application of mind in mutation proceedings, even though they are summary proceedings, can at times prevent injustice and prolonged litigation. This is not to suggest that interference in such matters should be made in a routine manner."
27. An exception to the generival contentions areral rule against interference with orders made in mutation proceedings, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, finds reference in the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad and others AIR 1957 ALL 205, wherein it was stated as follows :-
"3...The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act..."
28. In the case of Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow and others 2002 (93) RD 6, while taking the view that mutation proceedings are subject to adjudication of title by competent court, it was held that writ petition arising out of such proceedings cannot be held to be non-maintainable but such writ petition is not entertained due to reason that parties have right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit and the orders passed in mutation proceedings are summary in nature. In a situation where a challenge is raised to an order passed without jurisdiction, it was held that the writ petition can be entertained despite availability of alternative remedy. Referring to the earlier decision in the case of Jaipal, it was stated as follows :-
"18. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that although the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings cannot be held to be non-maintainable but this Court does not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution due to reason that parties have right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit and the orders passed in mutation proceedings are summary in nature."
29. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.
30. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is ready and willing to file suit for declaration of rights over the disputed property but submits that during the said period interim protection should be granted to the petitioners.
31. As an interim measure it is provided that in case a suit is instituted by the petitioners within three weeks, status quo over the property in dispute, as it exists today, shall be maintained with regard to the disputed property. Petitioners shall also file application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code along with the suit. The trial Court shall consider and decide the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code expeditiously, say within a period of two months, in case there is no legal impediment after giving proper opportunity to all the parties.
32. In case, the trial Court is unable to decide the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, it shall proceed to consider grant of interim protection to the petitioners. It is made that clear that the protection granted by this Court shall lapse on expiry of two months' period from the date of institution of the suit and shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by the Civil Court in the suit proceedings.
33. The parties shall cooperate in the proceedings before the Civil Court.
34. The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
35. It is made clear that the civil court shall not be bound by the observations made by this Court in the present order.
[Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 23.7.2025 KR