Disposed

Jhinkana v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024/127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Court refused to interfere in a writ petition challenging a remand order in mutation proceedings. The Court held that mutation proceedings are summary and do not decide title, stating that the petitioner may pursue her case before the authority or contest in a regular suit.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her case before the appeal authority and to contest in the regular suit for declaration of rights.

Jhinkana Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13634

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 127 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jhinkana Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar,Pankaj Gupta,Rama Kant Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.1/Board of Revenue, Lucknow, U.P.

¶9

The impugned order of appellate authority dated 28.12.2023 is an order of remand. This order was passed in the revision, registered as Revision No. REV/1895/2023/Balrampur, wherein the order(s) dated 01.07.2023 and 02.08.2019 passed in mutation case were challenged.

¶10

Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings.

¶11

It would be apt to indicate that a remand order does not terminate the proceedings and parties could place their case before the authority/court for the purposes of adjudication of the issues involved in the case.

¶12

It is also to be noted that the 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Section 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, (now repealed) as also Section 39 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which is applicable w.e.f. 11.02.2016, make it clear that no mutation

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid as also the undisputed fact that a regular suit in relation to land in dispute i.e. Gata Nos. 384, 394 and 422 is pending consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her case before the authority concerned. Liberty is also provided to the petitioner to contest in the regular suit seeking declaration of her rights over the property in issue before appropriate Court/Forum.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Vinay/-

¶18

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

Jhinkana v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhinkana v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs the Board of Revenue and Others

Smt. Shyama Devi Vs Chief Revenue Officer and Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs District Magistrate Sultanpur and 5 Others

Ramawati and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lucknow and 4 Others

Ram Saran and Others Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Its Member Judicial and Others