Dismissed

Ghaseete @ Ghaseet and Others v. Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Kasarbagh, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024WRIB/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging mutation orders dismissed for non-maintenance of title. The Court held mutation is summary and cannot decide title, directing parties to file a civil suit instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioners to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of rights.

What the court decided

Ghaseete @ Ghaseet and Others vs Chairman, Board of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6597

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 70 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ghaseete @ Ghaseet And Others Respondent :- Chairman, Board Of Revenue, U.P. Kasarbagh, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Chaurasiya,Rakesh Kumar Verma

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

The present petition has been filed with following prayer:-

¶9

"[i] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.11.2023 & 23.08.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and order dated 10.10.1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur after summoning the lower courts record. (Contained as Annexure no. 1, 2 & 3), to this writ petition.

¶10

[ii] Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the Reference Case No. 61/1994-95, Sarju Prasad Vs Ghaseete & others, District Kanpur Dehat on merit after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners."

¶11

From the relief(s), quoted above, as also the averments made in the present petition, it is apparent that the petitioners have challenged the orders passed in the mutation proceedings.

¶12

It further reflects from the record that initial order dated 22.09.1992 was passed on the basis of 'Will' dated 20.02.1991 by revenue court of first instance namely, Tehsildar-Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat in the mutation case and being aggrieved, an appeal was filed under Section 210 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") and the same was

¶13

finally allowed vide order dated 22.09.1992 and it appears from the order dated 22.09.1992, which is on record, that the appellate authority decided the issue of title between the parties. Thereafter, the revision No.240 of 1992, (Sarju Prasad vs. Ghaseete and Others), was filed and the revisional authority namely Additional Commissioner (Administration), DivisionKanpur, District-Kanpur interfered in the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of Tehsildar concerned dated 20.02.1991 and referred the matter to the opposite party No.1Board of Revenue with observations that the order dated 22.09.1992 be set aside and the order dated 20.02.1991 be restored. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1-Board of Revenue at Lucknow dismissed the revision vide order dated 23.08.2017.

¶14

From the impugned order dated 23.08.2017, it appears that opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue at Lucknow while dismissing the revision took note of the fact that the appellate authority vide order dated 22.09.1992 decided the issue of title between the parties, which is admittedly impermissible in the mutation proceedings and also took note of the fact that the aggrieved party can approach the regular court for declaration of rights over the property in issue.

¶15

It would be apt to indicate that the plea to decide the case on the basis of compromise was also not accepted by the opposite party No.1 on the ground that the compromise on record does not bear the signature of Sarju Prasad and it bears the thumb impression of Sarju Prasad though Sarju Prasad put his signature on the vakalatnama and also that the parties have not been identified by the counsel concerned. On being asked regarding observations related to compromise in the impugned order dated 23.08.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to justify his case based upon the compromise by placing

¶16

law on the issue.

¶17

In regard to the observations in the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 that the appellate authority decided the issue of title in the mutation proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that in mutation proceedings title cannot be decided.

¶18

The review application filed by the petitioners in regard to impugned order dated 23.08.2017, to the view of this Court, has rightly been dismissed as issue of compromise was dealt with in the order dated 23.08.2017.

¶19

It is settled view 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Considering the facts of the case, indicated in brief hereinabove, as also the law related to mutation proceedings, I

¶23

am not inclined to entertain the present petition challenging the orders dated 30.11.2023 and 23.08.2017, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular suit seeking declaration of his rights.

¶24

In regard to interim relief, it is provided that if an application seeking interim relief is preferred by the petitioners before the Court/Authority concerned in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners, the Court/Authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same as early as possible. Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Raj

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghaseete @ Ghaseet and Others v. Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Kasarbagh, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ghaseete @ Ghaseet and Others v. Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P. Kasarbagh, Lucknow 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

Shiv Prakash Singh Vs Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Lalganj Distt. Raebareli and 3 Others

Smt. Deepeshwari Devi Vs Consolidation Officer, District-Bahraich and 3 Others

Kushalawati Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Utraula Distt. Balrampur and Another

Shiv Prakash Maurya Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Dist. Ambedkar Nager and 8 Others

Akatwa Nath and 2 Others Vs Settlement Officer Consolidation Judicial Barabanki and 9 Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others