Allahabad High Court
Prabhat Kumar Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47993 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7195 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreyash Agrawal,Akshat Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Hari Om Singh,Ravi Shankar Jaiswal Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Shreyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 9. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Present dispute pertains to the mutation proceedings pertaining to the property of one Krishna Kumar Agarwal. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being son of Sri Krishna Kumar Agarwal is entitled to succeed the property of Krishna Kumar Agarwal. On the other hand respondent nos. 8 and 9 have opposed the application of petitioner claiming themselves to be sons of Krishna Kumar Agarwal and respondent no. 7 is also claiming herself to be wife of Krishna Kumar Agarwal.
3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were initiated purportedly by Krishna Kumar Agarwal himself, who died during pendency of the said proceedings and respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9's names were directed to be muted in his place by means of order dated 10.10.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2023, preferred an appeal which has also been rejected by means of order dated 16.07.2024, and both the aforesaid orders have been assailed in the present writ petition.
4. Perusal of both the impugned orders indicate that the parties have filed respective documents in support of their submissions and seriously contested the issue pertaining to mutation and as to the person who would be entitled to succeed the property of Krishna Kumar Agarwal. Identity of the applicant has also been challenged by the petitioner, stating that person who had initiated the proceedings is not Krishna Kumar Agrawal but some other person. In this regard also various evidences were lead. Without dwelling into various documents filed and evidence lead by the respective parties, undoubtedly the issue is seriously contested by both the parties.
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, by means of present writ petition this Court has been called upon to adjudicate upon the controversy pertaining to as to who are the legal heirs of Krishna Kumar Agarwal.
6. According to the respondents, it is the consistent view of the Courts that writ petition of such a nature arising out of mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 would not be maintainable before this Court, inasmuch as any application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pertains only to correction of revenue records and in case issue is seriously contested, then it is open for the parties to file regular suit for declaration and seek a decree in this regard. It is further submitted that any decree passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction would be binding upon the revenue authorities.
7. 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.
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.
22. In the light of aforesaid judgments, it is clear that this Court would not entertain a writ petition where factual controversy is raised under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and accordingly, in such matters the parties should be relegated to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking declaration.
23. At this stage, the petitioner has disclosed that he has filed regular suit being Suit No. 1193 of 2024 - Prabhat Kumar Agarwal Vs. Nitin Agarwal which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya, where declaration has been sought with regard to the persons who would be legal heirs of late Krishna Kumar Agarwal, who would inherit the property of late Krishna Kumar Agarwal.
24. It is noticed that in case petitioner succeeds then he shall be able to demonstrate that the private respondents are infact legal heirs of late Ram Kumar Agarwal and not Krishna Kumar Agarwal and thereby would succeed in his contentions.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the petitioner in the suit proceedings which is pending till date, because respondents have not been served.
26. Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 9 submits that he was not aware of the suit proceedings, but has received supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner today, from which he came to know about the pendency of regular suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya.
27. Accordingly, considering the length of time the application for interim relief is pending, it is provided that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ayodhya shall proceed to consider and decide the application for interim relief expeditiously, say within six weeks from the date of receipt of service report. In case service report is not received within next six weeks, the trial Court shall proceed to consider grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of petitioner, in case petitioner is able to satisfy the trial Court in this regard.
28. With above directions the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 14.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)