Allahabad High Court
Vidhyavati vs The State Of U.P. Thru. The Collector, ... on 24 November, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76666
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11173 of 2025
Vidhyavati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. The Collector, Sitapur And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Manjusha Kapil, Vimal Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.6, which is taken on record.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial-I), in Revision Case No. 1062/2002-23 (Sumitra Devi Vs. Ram Naresh) and order dated 30.9.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner II, Lucknow, in Recall Application No. 3372/2025.
3. The dispute in the present case pertains to the mutation of the property, which is situated in plot no. 135 area 0-291 hectares and plot no. 166 area 0-388 hectares, situated at village Bhanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitpaur. It is stated that the name of predecessor-in- interest of 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 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.
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 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 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, (1989) 3 SCC 612; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349, and H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (19896) 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.''
17. 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..."
18. 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..."
19. 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.
20. 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 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."
21. 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.
18. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to file suit before competent court of jurisdiction along with an application for interim stay which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
(Alok Mathur,J.) November 24, 2025 Muk