Allahabad High Court
Iqbal Ahmad Khan And 3 Others vs Board Of Revenue, Lko./ Revisional ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47425 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 769 of 2025 Petitioner :- Iqbal Ahmad Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, Lko./ Revisional Authority And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastava,Ratnesh Kant Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.
2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that during consolidation proceedings, by means of order dated 06.11.1979, all the objections preferred by the petitioners with regard to plot situated at Gata No. 125, area 0.47 acre was cancelled as 'banjar' and was recorded in the name of Aftab Ahmad Khan, father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2. Subsequently, they were recorded as tenure holders in the khatauni for fasli 1409 - 1414. Aftab Ahmad is survived by three sons who are petitioner no. 1, 4 and one Jamal Ahmad Khan.
4. Respondent no. 5 had moved an application under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for correction of record in respect of Gata No. 124, measuring 0.283 acres and Gata No. 130, area 0.134 acres. The petitioners have also filed their objections and relied upon the order dated 06.11.1979, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kheri. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharaura did not favorably considered the objections filed by the petitioners and cancelled the name of petitioners from Gata No. 130 and recorded name of one Upendra Kumar and also cancelled name of Upendra Kumar from Gata No. 124 and land was recorded in the name of respondent no. 5.
5. Against order dated 28.11.2011, petitioner filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was allowed on 20.06.2015 and order dated 28.11.2011 was set aside and matter was remanded for deciding afresh and also for verifying order dated 06.11.1979.
6. It is in the remand proceedings order dated 06.01.1979 could not be verified and it was informed that no such file was received in the record room and accordingly, it is in the aforesaid circumstances that order dated 15.05.2025 was passed rejecting the application of petitioners solely on the ground that order dated 06.01.1979 was neither filed by the petitioners nor can be verified from the records and it was held that it was the duty of the petitioners to file documents, on the basis of which they are asserting their claim and further it was held that Form CH 45 was forged and previous order dated 28.11.2011 was reiterated.
7. Against order dated 15.05.2025, the petitioners preferred revision before Board of Revenue, Lucknow, under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act and the said revision was also rejected on 14.07.2025. Order dated 14.07.2025, has been assailed in the present writ petition.
8. Perusal of impugned revisional order dated 15.05.2025 would indicate that it has only been considered that the petitioners cannot file any document in support of their claim neither before the Consolidation Officer nor before the revisional Court and consequently he was of the view that no interference is required in the matter and has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners.
9. Before this Court the petitioners have reiterated the arguments raised before the trial Courts and main ground in support of their contention is order dated 06.11.1979. There is no dispute that the record culminating into order dated 06.11.1979, is not traceable and probably weeded out. It is for this reason the petitioners have submitted that neither certified copy nor any copy of the said proceedings is available and accordingly same cannot be filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate nor before the revisional Court.
10. Considering the fact that entire claim of the petitioners is based upon order dated 06.11.1979, which is not available. This Court has been called upon to look into the validity of the impugned orders. Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary proceedings for correction in the revenue records. The authorities are under duty to decide the contention of the parties only on the basis of the perusal of record. Detailed procedure pertaining to filing of evidence and examination of witnesses is not available in the summary proceedings. Accordingly, undoubtedly there was no material to support the claim of petitioner and consequently, their claim has been rejected.
11. It is further noticed that in the proceedings before the authorities below or in the writ proceedings before this Court, no material has been filed in support of their contention. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference in the order dated 14.07.2025 or 15.05.2025 and 28.11.2011.
12. 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.
13. 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."
14. 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."
15. 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)."
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 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."
19. 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.
20. In view of above, it is clear that contention of petitioners is not maintainable and in case petitioner wishes claim title in the disputed property he is at liberty to file suit for declaration before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where he would be able to prove and submit all the material in their support.
21. Accordingly, in the aforesaid reasons this Court do not find any ground for interference in the matter. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
22. However, it is provided that in case suit is filed within four months before the Court of competent jurisdiction alongwith application for interim relief, it is provided that the Court shall consider the interim relief application with expedition and pass appropriate orders thereupon in accordance with law, in case there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 13.8.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)