Dismissed

Smt. Parana Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2021WRIC/14214/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Parana Devi challenging revisional orders under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Court held that Section 33/39 proceedings are summary in nature regarding mutation and revenue entries, which do not decide title, and thus writ jurisdiction is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Parties directed to file a regular suit for declaration.

Smt. Parana Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14214 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Parana Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amar Nath Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 05.02.2021 passed by Commissioner Varanasi Region Varanasi in revisional proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially land was allotted in favour of father-in-law of the petitioners and they continued to be in possession. A declaratory suit was filed by father-in-law, Ram Raj under Section 229B in the year 1994. The said proceedings were withdrawn. Later on, the plots for which the declaratory right was claimed by father-in-law of the petitioners was allotted to the petitioners as well as her father-in-law in the year 2004.

¶8

It is next contended that district revenue authorities are trying to take possession over the land as such proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act was initiated by petitioners which was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2016. Against which, a revision was preferred by them which was also rejected on 05.02.2021.

¶9

Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha submitted that proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Revenue Act are summary in nature and no writ petition lies against order passed in summary proceedings. He has relied upon decision of this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825, wherein the Court passed the following order:-

¶10

"5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.

¶11

6. The law is well-settled that:

¶12

(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the

¶13

parties over the land involved is not decided;

¶14

(ii) mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded;

¶15

(iii) they neither extinguish nor create title;

¶16

(iv) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and

¶17

(v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.

¶18

6. 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

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act have culminated in the order of respondent no. 2. The said proceedings are summary in nature and no writ petition lies against an order passed in a summary proceedings. The petitioner may file a regular suit for declaration. The order passed by revenue authorities needs no interference.

¶20

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.8.2021 V.S.Singh

Smt. Parana Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parana Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vandana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs Prof Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya)

Ghanshyam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Roshani and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Shamla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others