Allahabad High Court
Smt. Satyawati And Others vs Additional Commissioner Meerut Div. ... on 27 January, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3492 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Satyawati And Others Respondent :- Additional Commissioner Meerut Div. Meerut And Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.K. Singh,A.K. Rai Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel.
On the death of Smt. Gomiti Devi the dispute arose between her daughters ie. the petitioners and respondent no. 4 who is brother of the husband of the deceased. Both the parties applied for mutation. The petitioners on the basis of will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Gomiti Devi in their favour and otherwise whereas respondent no. 4 on basis of inheritance being the brother of the husband of Gomiti Devi who ranks higher in preference than the daughters.
The mutation application of the respondent no. 4 has ultimately been allowed by the order impugned dated 13.2.2009 and order has been upheld in appeal as well as in revision . On the other hand the application for mutation filed by the petitioners remains pending though it was initially allowed which order was set aside and the matter remanded. Thus, aggrieved by the order of mutation dated 13.2.2009 as well as the appellate order and revisional order thereof, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
It is settled legal preposition that mutation of names in revenue records are only for fiscal purposes to enable State government to collect land revenue from the person recorded and are not to be treated as document of title. Recording of names against any agricultural land neither extinguishes nor confers any title. The proper course open for the parties is always to get their claim over the agricultural land adjudicated as declared from the competent court of jurisdiction. Since the order of mutation in no way affects or prejudice the rights of the parties in agricultural land following the dictum of law laid down in 1993(2) AWC 932 State of U.P. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow and others, the writ petition is not maintainable.
It goes without saying that in case the petitioners press for decision of their application for mutation before the authority concerned despite the orders impugned, the concerned competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law most expeditiously.
Petition is dismissed as not maintainable with the above observation.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010 SKS