Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mutation order in Basdeo And 4 Ors. vs Board Of Revenue Thru Member Lucknow And ... on 12 November, 2025Matching Fragments
15. In support of the submission advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-
i. Rudra Pratap Vs. Board of Revenue [1975 AIR Allahabad 125]. Relevant paragraphs 2 and 3 are quoted below :-
"2. This Court in Prema Devi v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1969 All LJ 253 = (AIR 1970 All 238) has held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply to agricultural land. Thus the view taken by the Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous. The learned counsel for the opposite party does not contest this proposition, but he contends that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Jaipal Minor v. The Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad. 1956 All LJ 807 (1) = (AIR 1957 All 205). In that case no doubt it was held that mutation proceedings ordinarily relate to the question of possession and do not decide the question of title for which there is a separate remedy by way of a suit and as such the High Court should not interfere in the order passed in mutation proceedings. But it was also observed in that case that this consideration should not be applied in cases where the question of title is also decided in mutation proceedings. In my opinion the present case belongs to that category of cases inasmuch as the Board of Revenue has proceeded to decide the question of title. The Board of Revenue has not ordered mutation in favour of the third respondent merely on the basis of her possession, but it has ordered mutation in her favour on the ground that she is entitled to succeed to the land in dispute whereas the petitioners are not so entitled. This finding even if not conclusive, does throw a shadow on the clear title of the petitioners. The petitioners, in my opinion, are entitled to seek the assistance of this Court to remove that shadow and it is not necessary to drive them to the remedy of a suit.
(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
21. The authorities below have dealt with the mutation matter as if it was title dispute, whereas the mutation matter should be confined to discussion regarding possession only as well as the order against the petitioners has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without hearing them. In view of the above, the impugned order is per se illegal and is not sustainable in law.
22. This Court in Prema Devi v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1969 All LJ 253 = (AIR 1970 All 238) has held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply to agricultural land. Thus the view taken by the Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous. In the case is hand, there is no doubt that the mutation proceeding ordinarily relates to the question of possession and do not decide the question of title for which there is a statutory remedy to file regular suit and as such the courts below have passed mutation order on the basis of question of title decided in mutation proceeding. In my opinion the present case belongs to that category of cases inasmuch as the Board of Revenue has proceeded to decide the question of title. The Board of Revenue has not ordered mutation in favour of the third respondent merely on the basis of her possession, but it has ordered mutation in her favour on the ground that she is entitled to succeed to the land in dispute whereas the petitioners are not so entitled. This finding even if not conclusive, does throw a shadow on the clear title of the petitioners. The petitioners, in my opinion, are entitled to seek the assistance of this Court to remove that shadow and it is not necessary to drive them to the remedy of a suit.
25. In the present case, 27.6.1999 was a Sunday and no hearing can take place on a Sunday, meaning thereby, the order was passed without hearing the petitioners, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
26. 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 (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.