Dismissed

Ram Baran v. Chief Judicial Magistrate and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024WRIC/1001178/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition challenging mutation entries based on an unregistered will is not maintainable as revenue records do not confer title. The petition is dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title and grant of interim injunction under CPC Order 39.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit for title and grant test for interim injunction under CPC Order 39.

Ram Baran Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate and 4 Ors. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23477

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001178 of 2004

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Baran Respondent :- Chief Judicial Magistrate And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,S.N. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,I.D. Shukla,S.K. Mehrotra,Sharad Pathak,V.K.Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sanpreet Singh Advocate holding brief of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur as well as order dated 06.02.1997 passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur by which the name of the respondent no. 2 has been entered in the revenue records on the basis of unregistered will deed.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that neither any opportunity was given to the petitioner and the order was passed in a most arbitrary manner and are therefore, illegal and deserve to be set aside.

¶9

Shri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 has submitted that the present writ petition arises out of the proceedings for mutation by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur under Section 147 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 and the proceedings therein are summary in nature. He further submits that even if the name of the private respondents has been mutated, it does not confer any title and this has been the consistent view even in the Supreme

¶10

Court. He submits that a writ petition against the summary proceedings held by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur shall not be maintainable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the dispute of title can only be adjudicated by the competent civil court by adducing relevant evidence after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶11

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 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

" 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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. "

¶18

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

¶19

" 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.

¶20

38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3

¶21

held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:-

¶22

"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... "

¶23

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;

¶24

" 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. "

¶25

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;

¶26

" 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).

¶27

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. "

¶28

In a recent judgment, Apex Court in the case of Jitendra

¶29

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 :

¶30

" 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.

¶31

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. "

¶32

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

¶33

From the above, it is clear that the writ petition like the present wherein the proceedings of mutation has been assailed, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition would not be maintainable.

¶34

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to file a civil suit to establish his rights with regard to the ownership of property situated at House No. 1043, Mohalla Khairabad, National Talkies Road, Sultanpur and submits that as an interim measure, this Court by means of order dated 19.03.2004 had stayed the operation of the impugned orders, due to which, the petitioner is still in possession of the disputed property. He further submits that till the application of the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. is considered by the competent court, his interest may be protected.

¶35

Accordingly, with the consent of parties, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶36

(i) A liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a civil suit before the competent court with regard to the title from the property situated at House No. 1043, Mohalla Khairabad, National Talkies Road, Sultanpur. In case such suit is filed within next three weeks along with an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. then the interim protection granted by this Court shall continue till the decision is made on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. preferred by the petitioner.

¶37

(ii) it is further directed that the court concerned shall consider the said application expeditiously in accordance with law, if possible decide the same within a period of two months.

¶38

(iii) it is further provided in case the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. cannot be disposed within the time prescribed by this Court, a request for interim prayer may

¶39

also be considered during the said period.

¶40

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶41

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶42

Order Date :- 18.3.2024 Virendra

¶43

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

Ram Baran v. Chief Judicial Magistrate and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Baran v. Chief Judicial Magistrate and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satgur and Others Vs the Addl. District Judge Court No. 8 Barabannki and Others

Vidyawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Lakhimpur Khiri and 2 Others

Vidyut Vitran Division Ist Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Thru. Executive Engin. and Another Vs Ramroop

Shailendra Singh Yadava Vs the Vice Chancellor Narendra Dev Univ.

Dr. Rajmani Dohare Vs Appropriate Authority/State Appellate Authority Under P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Thru. Chairman,Lko. and Ors.

Balram and 2 Others Vs State Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others