Allahabad High Court
Lalta Prasad And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10455 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 339 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Dubey,Sarvesh Kumar Verma Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State-respondents.
Sri Sarvesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4 on caveat.
Under challenge are the orders dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)-II, Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed upholding the orders passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 12.07.2007.
The matter arises from the mutation proceedings.
It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question belonged to one Sri Vednath who had two sons Purnanand and Shiv Shankar. Sri Vednath had his properties in two villages one in village Raipur and Village Belthua.
As per the petitioners, both the petitioners and the private respondent no. 4 would have equal rights being the sons of Vednath, however, this is contested and disputed by the private respondents whose claim is that the property in question belonged to Gurprasad.
It is further stated that Gurprasad had two sons namely Vednath and Purnanand. Sri Vednath had only son namely Shiv Shankar who is the private respondent no. 4 in the instant writ petition.
It is urged that the present petitioners are son of Purnanand who is the son of Gurprasad.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 that Purnanand while claiming the properties in Village Belthua had indicated and shown his parentage as son of Gurprasad whereas while he contested the proceedings in Village Raipur, he has shown his parentage to be the son of Vednath.
It is urged that even earlier a proceedings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had transpired between the parties wherein Purnanand has shown himself to be the son of Gurprasad.
It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is submitted that there is a clear dispute regarding the title and parentage and this can only be decided through regular proceedings.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the mutation proceedings are only summary in nature and they do not decide any right, title or interest of a party and this is only for the purpose of fiscal. Whether the petitioners are the sons of Purnanand S/o Gurprasad or Purnanand S/o Vednath is an issue which can only be decided in regular proceedings.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition as none of the exceptions which have been carved out by the Court to entertain petitions arising out of the mutation matters as noticed in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue and others; 2022(4) ADJ 578 has been pointed out. Moreover, the Apex Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2021 SCC Online SC 802 has held as under:-
"6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in therevenue 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.
7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
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.
9. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court."
Thus, leaving all contentious plea open to enable the parties to get their rights adjudicated in the regular forum, this does not refrain, therefore, the petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that the mere dismissal of the petition may not be treated as an expressions of opinion on merits on the substantive right of the parties which nevertheless would prevail and any order passed by the mutation court would follow the decision of the regular proceedings.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till such time the suit is filed, the parties may be directed to maintain status-quo, this Court does not deem appropriate to pass any such order since the petitioners, if they chose to file regular proceedings, they have ample opportunity as provided in law to move an appropriate application before the regular court who may consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Asheesh/-