Allahabad High Court
Ankit Dwivedi vs Pramod Kumar And 2 Others on 29 August, 2022
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23715 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ankit Dwivedi Respondent :- Pramod Kumar And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Indra Sen Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceeding of mutation case no. 5087 of 2018, Pramod Kumar v. Buddilal on the ground that application which has been instituted for mutation proceeding is on the basis of Will which has been seriously disputed by the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others passed n Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13146 of 2021 decided on 06th September, 2021, which according to him holds that mutation proceedings are not maintainable while parties are seeking mutation on the basis of Will.
I have carefully gone through the judgment of Supreme Court more particularly paragraph 5, which runs as under:
"5. We have heard Shri Nishesh Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.
It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made."
From the reading of the aforesaid paragraph 5 of the judgment, I do not find, anywhere Supreme Court holding mutation proceedings to be barred by law in case if instituted on the basis of Will. Instead, what I find is that Supreme Court has observed that mutation orders are not not conclusive orders qua rights and tile of the parties and if the parties are seeking rights and title on the basis of the Will they will have to seek declaration in that respect by drawing proper civil proceedings in civil Court. Supreme Court has held that mutation proceedings are conducted and the names are mutated accordingly for fiscal purposes i.e. collection of land revenue .
In view of above, I do not find it to be a fit case to interfere at this stage. It is always open for the petitioner to contest the mutation petition filed by respondent no. 1 by filing his objection, if any.
Subject to what has been observed above, this writ petition is dismissed and consigned to records.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Sanjeev