Ram Manohar Singh Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and 5 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21846

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2312 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Manohar Singh Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Shri Syed Farooq Ahmad, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 4 today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 3 and Shri Syed Farood Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present case arises out of the proceedings undertaken under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, Vasudev Singh was the original resident of the Village Sanethu, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) and migrated from Village Santhue to Village Jalaluddin Nagar in the year 1945 prior to the abolition of Zamindari and got a house constructed over Abadi land, which is recorded as House No.312. The dispute has arisen on account of the fact that the father of opposite party no. 4 to 6, namely Ugrasen Singh has got his name recorded in the family register of Village Jalaluddin Nagar showing that the house of the petitioner as his own and got the same number of the house 312/2 in the family register without any order having been

¶11

passed by the competent authority.

¶12

It is with regard to the aforesaid dispute, an appeal was filed by the petitioner under Rule 6-A of the Rule of 1970 assailing the entry in the family register before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ayodhya, which was registered as Case No. 6496 of 2019. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ayodhya by means of order dated 22.02.2024 has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

The petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents, who has supported the impugned order and further submitted that the dispute, which has been canvassed before this Court is also subject matter of Regular Suit No. 470 of 2016 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad being Suit No. 362 of 2018. It has further been submitted that all the respondents have also put in appearance before the civil court and are contesting the said case and accordingly it has been submitted that once the dispute has been presented before the civil court then the dispute will be settled by the civil court and in the present circumstances, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶15

It is noticed that the present proceedings pertain to the entries made under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970. It is noticed that the proceedings under the Rules of 1970 are summary in nature and on the strength of any finding given by the Prescribed Authority no right can be claimed and disputed rights, if any, have to be finally settled by the court of competent jurisdiction. It is

¶16

further noticed that the petitioner has already instituted a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed against the private respondents before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad. It has been consistently held by this Court that in such matters writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable and the rights of the parties in such summary proceedings are subject to the outcome of regular suit proceedings.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, with the consistent view of this Court that in summary proceedings the issue pertaining to the title cannot be decided nor the same can be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The observations of the co-ordinate Bench are hereunder:-

¶19

In the case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020

¶20

(3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under;

¶21

" 16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.

¶22

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it may be restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are in summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit.

¶23

18. 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. In view thereof this Court has consistently held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. "

¶24

In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5)

¶25

ADJ 212 Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under;

¶26

" 37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the

¶27

revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.

¶28

38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:-

¶29

"2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission... "

¶30

Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;

¶31

" 17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. "

¶32

In a recent judgment in case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019 , decided on 31.01.2019, Apex Court held that mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are extracted here as under;

¶33

" 8. 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 it has 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 (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).

¶34

9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good

¶35

ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference. "

¶36

In a recent judgment, Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021 decided on 6th September, 2021 has held as under :

¶37

" 6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.

¶38

7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 5 20.05.1998 and relegating the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. "

¶39

This Court has also considered another judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), AIR Online 2021 All 2060 , where the Hon'ble Judge of this Court has carved out certain exceptions for entertaining a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings. In order to entertain present writ petition it was to be demonstrated by the petitioner that mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or simply on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into a

¶40

debate of entitlement to succeed the property, touching into the merits of the rival claims.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner admits that the dispute raising the present petition would be covered by the final judgment and outcome of the regular suit pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faizabad and also further submits that he has moved an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. seeking internal protection during the pendency of the suit for restraining the defendants from alienating the disputed property and submits that till his application is decided, interim protection may be granted to him.

¶42

Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar Ayodhya would not be maintainable considering the fact that the same arises out of summary proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970 and for the same dispute a civil suit is already pending consideration before the competent court and it is herein provided that the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ayodhya is directed to consider and decide the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. expeditiously say within a period of next two months, if there is no legal impediment and till the application is decided, the respondents are restrained from alienating the disputed property.

¶43

It is made clear that said protection shall be subject to the directions passed by the trial court on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. preferred by the petitioner.

¶44

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is dismissed.

¶45

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶46

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Virendra

¶47

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

Ram Manohar Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Manohar Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ayodhya and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kartikeya Verma @ Rahul Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and 2 Others

Hem Kant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare Lko. and 6 Others

Raj Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sajiwan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Transport Lucknow and Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Smt. Indu Pratha Kumari

Aslam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others