Allahabad High Court
Smt. Budhani Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 10 Others on 13 May, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:110943
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2044 of 2026
Smt. Budhani Devi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of respondent nos.2 and 3, dated 09.09.2025 and 10.06.2019, respectively, arising out of proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in dispute originally belongs to one Indu Bhushan Chaterjee son of Kumud Narayan Chaterjee. An application under Section 34 of the Code was moved by one Lakshmi Narayan, before the concerned Tehsildar, on the basis of will dated 13.11.1995, executed by one Sachna Devi, who is the transferee of the land in dispute by Indu Bhushan Chaterjee. The aforesaid application was allowed by the order of Tehsildar dated 10.06.2019. The said order was exparte against the petitioners, who have already filed suit for declaration of their right under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, on the basis of possession, since before the date of vesting, which is pending. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2019, the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow, the respondent no.2, which has been dismissed by the order dated 09.09.2025.
4. It is admitted fact that the land in dispute belonged to one Kumud Narayan Chaterjee, who was succeeded by his son Indu Bhushan Chaterjee. The Tehsildar, on the basis of sale executed by Indu Bhushan Chaterjee in favour of Sachna Devi, directed the name of respondent no.4 to be recorded in the revenue records. The allegation of petitioners that the said sale deed is a fraudulent document cannot be decided in the summary proceedings of mutation over the land in dispute. The right of petitioners is yet to be determined in the suit filed by them under Section 229-B of the Act. The respondent no.2 while dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners has also observed that their right is subject to decision of the suit filed by them under Section 229-B of the Act. The orders passed in mutation proceedings do not determine the rights of parties but are always subject to decision in the regular proceedings.
5. The apprehension of the petitioners that if the name of contesting respondents are recorded in the revenue records, further sale deeds will be executed disposing of the property, can be redressed by moving appropriate application in the pending suit filed by them. The entries in the revenue records are only for fiscal purposes, which does not affect the decree to be passed in the pending suit for declaration of rights.
6. 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.
7. 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?"
8. 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."
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. 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."
12. 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)."
13. 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.''
14. 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?''
15. 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 State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram, (1996) 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.''
16. 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?"
17. The present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the orders passed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, under challenge in this petition, shall be subject to the decree/decision to be passed in the pending suit filed by the petitioners.
(Arun Kumar,J.) May 13, 2026 Ashok Kr.