Allahabad High Court
Rafi Ahmad And 4 Others vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:53100
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 8460 of 2025
Rafi Ahmad And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ram Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Avneesh Singh
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Arvind Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4, same is taken on record.
2. In the light of proposed order notice to respondent nos. 5 to 8 is dispensed with.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that one Ishhaq @ Istiyaq S/o Kudrat Ali was original tenure holder of land Gata No. 209/0.6240 hectares and land Gata No. 213/1.3280 hectares situated at Village - Subeha, Pargana - Subeha, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District - Barabanki. It is next submitted that Mohd. Ishhaq @ Istiyak was married to Smt. Bismilla, who had two daughters namely Alimunnisha and Salimunnisha. Apart from aforesaid lands Mohd. Ishhaq @ Istiyak was also recorded tenure holder of land of Gata No. 485/1 and 485/2 now Gata No. 988, situated at Village - Saidpur, Pargana - Mawai, Tehsil - Rudauli, District - Barabanki. It is submitted that Ishhaq @ Istiyak died in the year 1974 and it is during consolidation operations in 1995 land was mutated in favour of only Alimunnisha W/o Abdul Hai by order dated 30.08.1995, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, with regard to land situated at Village - Subeha, Pargana - Subeha, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District - Barabanki.
4. After death of Ishhaq @ Istiyak, the land of Gata No. 209 and 213 of Village and Pargana - Subeha, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District - Barabanki was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Bismillah and after death of Smt. Bismillah in 1980, the land was mutated in favour of only one daughter namely Salimunnisha, excluding other daughter namely Alimunnisha.
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was preferred by Smt. Alimunnisha. The Tehsildar, initially passed order in favour of Smt. Alimunnisha, but subsequently, the said order dated 25.02.2009 was challegned by Smt. Salimunnisha and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for decision afresh. It is in the remand proceedings that by means of impugned order dated 22.02.2023, application of petitioner has been rejected. While rejecting the application of petitioners it was recorded by the Tehsildar that after death of Smt. Bismillah, in proceedings under Paka 11, name of Smt. Salimunnisha was recorded in the revenue record after application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had been preferred by the petitioners and accordingly on the ground of delay the application has been rejected.
6. It was further noticed by the Tehsildar that Mohd. Ishq and Mohd. Istiyak are two persons and they have died in 1974 and 1994 respectively and it is for this reason he did not rely upon the previous mutation order pertaining to the property situated in Village - Subeha. The petitioners being aggrieved by order of Tehsildar, had preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya. It is during this period that the petitioners also obtained copy of death certificate from the Panchayat, and stated that death certificate produced by the respondents was forged.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts the appellate Court also found that Mohd. Istiyaq and Mohd. Ishaq cannot be one and same person as both had died in 1994 and 1974 respectively which are twenty years apart and apart from which there is no evidence that whether Alimunnisha is elder or Salimunnisha is the elder sister, while there was evidence to show that deceased had only one daughter. Mohd. Ishtiyaq had only one daughter namely Smt. Salimunnisha and accordingly from the evidence on record it cannot be proved that Mohd. Ishtiyaq was survived by two daughters and accordingly for this reason the revisional authority has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners.
8. In the present writ petition both the orders dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Revision No. 497 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. C202304000000494) as well as order dated 22.02.2023, passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil - Haidergarh, District - Barabanki.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they were not granted adequate opportunity of hearing and both the revenue authorities have not appreciated the evidence in their right perspective and pray for setting aside the impugned orders.
10. Writ petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. It has been stated that firstly, the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are summary proceedings and evidence adduced by the parties were considered by the revenue authorities and in case petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders they have adequate remedy of filing a suit for declaration and writ proceedings for the aforesaid dispute is not maintainable.
11. Considering the rival contentions, this Court has noticed that it is seriously disputed question of fact with regard to the name of tenure holder i.e. whether his name is Mohd. Ishaq or Mohd. Istiyaq, as with regard to death of both the persons orders have been passed by both the revenue authorities relying upon two different death certificates.
12. This Court further finds that even the number of daughters is also disputed question of fact which has been decided by the Additional Commissioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that both the authorities have given adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it cannot be said that orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The proceedings were summary proceedings, which are to be decided only on the basis of exchange of affidavits and seriously contested questions of fact can be decided only in regular suit proceedings. This Court further finds that the question before the revenue authorities was with regard to the persons who will be liable to pay the revenue and does not determine the rights of the parties as owner to the disputed property.
13. 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.
14. 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?"
15. 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."
16. 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."
17. 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.
18. 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."
19. 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)."
20. 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.''
21. 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?''
22. 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.''
23. 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?"
24. 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?"
25. 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.
26. 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."
27. 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.
28. In view of the discussion made above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
30. However, in case petitioners file a suit for declaration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, within next three weeks, alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court shall consider and decide the interim relief application with expedition.
(Alok Mathur,J.) September 4, 2025 A. Verma