Petitioners challenged rejection of their mutation claim based on a Will while private respondents' gift-deed-based mutation was allowed. The court held mutation is summary and does not decide title; the pending Section 229-B suit would govern title. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36939
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4282 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ghanshyam And Others Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration Ii), Devi Patan Division, Gonda And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh,Vipul Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jitendra Kushwaha,Nitin Srivastava,Pankaj Gupta
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Smt. Anara Devi is said to have executed a gift deed on 08.09.2010 in favour of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, who have contested the said case before the Naib Tehsildar as well as in the suit proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
right or title over any person are in fact summary proceedings. It is stated that that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) Devi Patan Division, Gonda as he himself has recorded that the mutation proceedings in any case would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and any order passed by the competent court therein would prevail over the said order.
In the case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020
(3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under;
" 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.
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.
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. "
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;
" 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 revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.
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:-
"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... "
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;
" 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. "
" 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).
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 ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference. "
" 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.
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. "
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Virendra
Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether mutation orders under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code could be challenged in writ jurisdiction when a title suit under Section 229-B was pending.
Whether entries in revenue records confer title on the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahesh Kumar Juneja v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad DivisionRelied on¶9
Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104
Harish Chandra v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶10
Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212
Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan ChandReferred¶10
Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.
Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.Relied on¶11
Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import and Export CompanyRelied on¶12
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019
Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶13
Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) No.13146 of 2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ghanshyam And Others
Addl. Commissioner (Administration II), Devi Patan Division, Gonda
Anara Devi
Respondent nos. 4 to 6
Alok Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
