Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Rajbhar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 January, 2012
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 76692 of 2011 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Subhash Singh Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
It appears that on an application filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, an order was passed by the Up Ziladhikari on 25.2.1997 directing for deleting the name of Bal Roop son of Dharm Dev against Khata No.151 plot No.1 area 3-3-6 and for recording the names of Shiv Lochan and Shiv Govind both sons of Sarjoo.
Petitioner on 17.1.2008 applied for recall of the above order on the ground that he has acquired rights in the land in dispute on the basis of a registered Will alleged to have been executed and left behind by Bal Roop. The said application has been rejected and the petitioner's revision has also been dismissed.
In sum and substance, the writ petition arises out of mutation proceedings/correction of revenue entries.
The law is well-settled that:
(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) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and
(v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.
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.
The present case does not fall in any of the above exceptions.
In view of the above, as no substantive rights of the parties have been decided or are likely to be decided in the pending proceedings, no case for exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the parties to get their rights over the land in dispute, if necessary, adjudicated or declared by the competent court of jurisdiction. The order passed in the mutation proceedings would abide by the decision of the competent court, if any, and the said court would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding or observation made in the mutation orders or during mutation proceedings.
Order Date :- 3.1.2012 brizesh