Allahabad High Court
Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 March, 2020
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7606 of 2020 Petitioner :- Princess Mahi @ Saher Naqvi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saher Naqvi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Ms. Saher Naqvi, Petitioner-1 in person and perused the record.
2. Petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding Respondent-4 to remove name of Municipal Board and mention petitioners' name in Revenue Record.
3. Basically it is a matter relating to mutation and if authorities are not giving effect to mutation, petitioners have remedy to seek declaration in common law.
4. This Court in Arjun Vs. Board of Revenue & others 1983 All. L.J. NOC 1, placing reliance on Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue AIR 1957 All. 205 and Lekhraj & another Vs. Board of Revenue & others 1980 All. L.J. 904 dismissed the writ petition challenging the revisional order arising out of mutation proceedings, observing that the aggrieved party having efficacious alternative remedy of suit for seeking redress of his grievance, petition is not maintainable.
5. An Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25961 of 2008 (Smt. Anisa Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 29.7.2010 placing reliance on Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue (supra), Summer Lal Vs. Board of Revenue 1996 (87) RD 569, Sahed Jan @ Bonde Vs. Board of Revenue 2004 (96) RD 656 and Jagdish Narain Vs. Board of Revenue 2007 (102) RD 20, referring to the impugned orders in that writ petition observed as under:
"All the three authorities have decided the mutation proceedings and as such being summary in nature cannot be the subject matter of interference in this writ petition since the said impugned orders do not confer any title on the respondents and are only made for the purpose of either realization of land revenue or to refer to possession at that time."
6. Supreme Court very recently, in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) th. L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others 2019 (2) SCALE 336, referring to various earlier authorities on the subject, has said:
"The law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court.
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 it has 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 (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh and Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591)." (emphasis added)
7. In our view, petitioners have effective remedy under relevant statute and writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
8. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 4.3.2020 AK