Dismissed

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui v. Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023/2849/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenging mutation orders disputing land title filed a petition under Article 226. The Court held mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal only, not adjudicating title, and refused interference, allowing the petitioner to file a regular suit declaring rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to institute a regular suit for declaration of rights within two months; status quo maintained pending interim relief application.

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui Vs… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45199

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2849 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui Respondent :- Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad And 6 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

¶8

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order(s) passed in mutation proceedings by the revenue court(s).

¶9

It appears from the record that the dispute between the parties relates to land owned by one Rafiquddin and the claim of the petitioner is based upon the registered sale deed(s) dated 16.06.1987, 18.06.1987 and 22.06.1987 executed by Rafiquddin and the basis of claim of the private opposite parties is registered 'Will' dated 04.02.2010 executed by Mohd. Ahmad, whose name was entered in revenue records on the basis of an unregistered 'Will' dated 12.05.1997 executed by Smt. Tasleemunnisa Widow of Rafiquddin.

¶10

The first order in mutation proceedings was passed on 18.03.2002 and the dispute related to mutation is still alive.

¶11

Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and they do not decide any right or title between the parties; rather they are drawn only for fiscal purposes.

¶12

Furthermore, the order passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to declaration of rights which may be sought by the parties concerned by instituting a regular suit.

¶13

Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit. Mutation of a property in 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. The mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the rights of the parties and orders passed in mutation proceedings are always subject to adjudication by competent Court.

¶14

Considering the facts of the case, indicated in brief hereinabove, as also the law related to mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of his rights within a period of two months from today before appropriate Court/Forum.

¶15

In regard to interim relief, it is provided that if an application seeking interim relief is preferred by the petitioner before the Court/Authority concerned in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the Court/Authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same as early as possible, say within a period of two months from the date of preferring the application seeking interim relief after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶16

It is further directed that in case the petitioner institute any suit, the defendants therein will cooperate with the proceedings and

¶17

shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

¶18

Considering the facts and dispute, as narrated above, as also to protect the property, in issue, it is also provided that till disposal of application for interim relief i.e. for a period of two months, the parties shall maintain status-quo as exists today.

¶19

The benefit of interim protection would be available to the petitioner if he would institute a suit as per this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Vinay/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui v. Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalilullah Alias Khaleel Ullah Siddiqui v. Addl.Commissioner (Judicial) Faizabad and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Jatan and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad

Janak Dulari and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao and Another

Smt Bifai Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Amrawati Vs Tehsildar Judicaial, Tehsil Bikapur, Ayodhya and 3 Others

Sant Ram and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Committee of Management Sri Nath Baba Education Soc. Thru. Its Manager Awadhesh Singh and Another Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Others