Dismissed¶24

Shiv Dulari and Another v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2025/11390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shiv Dulari v. Commissioner Lucknow Division, WRIT-C 11390/2025, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), decided 4.12.2025 — mutation; bhumidhar; succession vs registered will dated 22.1.2008; PA-11; Tehsildar order 16.11.2023; Revision under Section 219 U.P. Land Revenue Act dismissed 28.2.2025; Section 37 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; summary nature of mutation proceedings; revenue entry creates no title; entry on basis of possession; title dispute not decidable in mutation; writ does not lie against mutation except jurisdictional error; remedy to challenge will before appropriate forum; Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue 2022 SCC OnLine ALL 193; State of Haryana v. Amin Lal SLP(C) 25231/2024; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, the mutation proceeding is summary in nature. ¶19

Shiv Dulari and Another Vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue authorities erred in recording the name of the mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 on the basis of the registered will dated 22.1.2008 instead of the petitioners, who claim entitlement by succession under Section 37 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

On perusal of the record, the mutation proceeding is summary in nature.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

As observed citing Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue and State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, a revenue entry does not create title; it is for revenue purposes, can be made even on the basis of possession, and a title dispute cannot be decided in such proceedings; normally a writ petition does not lie against mutation proceedings except where the revenue authority acted beyond its jurisdiction.

¶19

Key takeaways

The mutation made on the basis of the registered will deed could not be displaced by insufficient evidence before the revenue authorities; the petitioner's remedy is to challenge the will before the appropriate forum, since revenue authorities cannot decide title on the basis of the will.ratio¶23
No illegality was found in the impugned order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT-C No. 11390 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) dismissed on December 4, 2025. The petition sought certiorari against mutation orders dated 16.11.2023 (Tehsildar), 19.7.2024 (Appeal No. 3795 of 2023) and 28.2.2025 (Revision No. T202410000003364 under Section 219 U.P.L.R. Act), whereby the name of the mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 was recorded in respect of khatas of the deceased bhumidhar Shanti Devi on the basis of a registered will dated 22.1.2008, setting aside the petitioners' succession mutation of 22.4.2008. Relying on Smt. Kalawati v. Board of Revenue, 2022 SCC OnLine ALL 193, and the Apex Court decision in State of Haryana v. Amin Lal (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 25231 of 2024), the Court held that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, a revenue entry creates no title and may rest even on possession, and title disputes cannot be decided in such proceedings; a writ petition does not normally lie against mutation orders absent jurisdictional excess. As the petitioners did not challenge the will before the appropriate forum, and revenue authorities cannot decide title on the basis of a will, no illegality was found in the impugned orders and the petition was dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 11390 of 2025

¶3

Shiv Dulari And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashish Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Anoop Kumar

¶9

Court No. - 22

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶11

Heard Sri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶12

The instant petition has been filed to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2025 passed in Revision No. T202410000003364 (Case No. 3364/2024), order dated 19.7.2024 passed in Appeal No. 3795 of 2023 (computerized No. T202310580603795), order dated 16.11.2023 passed in Mutation Case No. T201510580601840 and direct the opposite parties to record the name of the petitioners in revenue records.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after death of Shanti Devi, bhumidhar of Khata Nos. 00121, 00051 and 00724, situated in village Ninava and Bara Parna, Parsdepur, the name of the petitioners was mutated on the basis of succession by order dated 22.4.2008 by the Revenue Inspector against which an appeal was filed by mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 Ramkali, on the ground that Shanti Devi had executed a registered will in her favour on 22.1.2008, therefore, PA-11 issued on 12.4.2008 was erroneous and same may be recalled. By order dated 14.4.2015, PA-11 dated 12.4.2008 was cancelled and the name of mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 was mutated on the basis of registered will dated 22.1.2008. This order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which was allowed by order dated 29.9.2016 and the matter was

¶14

WRIC No. 11390 of 2025

¶15

¶16

remanded back to Tehsildar. After the matter being remanded, Tehsildar again passed an order dated 16.11.2023 by which he directed to record the name of the mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 and order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the Revenue Inspector was set aside against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Lucknow Mandal under Section 219 U.P.L.R. Act, which was dismissed on 28.2.2025.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is absolutely erroneous as the revenue authority failed to consider that the petitioners are entitled to get their land registered on the basis of succession in view of Section 37 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 as well as learned Standing Court vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the mutation proceeding is summary in nature on the basis of registered will the name of the mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 has been mutated and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the will then he could have approached the competent authority for cancellation of will and as the petitioner has not filed any suit for cancellation of the will, therefore, the revenue authorities cannot decide the title on the basis of the registered will.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the mutation proceeding is summary in nature and this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati vs. Board of Revenue; 2022 SCC OnLine ALL 193 as well as judgement of Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Amin Lal; Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 25231 of 2024 observed that the revenue entry does not create title. It is for the revenue purpose and the entry can be made even on the basis of possession and title dispute cannot be decided in such proceeding. Normally writ petition does not lie against the mutation proceeding except the cases where the revenue authority acted beyond its jurisdiction.

¶20

From perusal of the impugned order, this Court found that the mutation of the name of the mother of respondents No. 4 & 5 was made on the basis of registered will deed which could not be disputed by insufficient

¶21

WRIC No. 11390 of 2025

¶22

¶23

evidence by the petitioner as the petitioner has remedy to challenge this will before appropriate forum and revenue authorities cannot decide the title on the basis of will. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶25

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶26

December 4, 2025

¶27

Vandana

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Dulari and Another v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Dulari and Another v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vimla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and Others

Hari Narayan and Others Vs Tehsildar Akbarpur, Tehsil Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Benchu Vs Settlement Consolidation Officer Consolidation, Gauriganj, Amethi and Others

Shiv Dulari and Another vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lko. and Others

Radhey Shayam Thru. Nxt Friend Rakesh Kumar vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tulsipur, Balrampur and Others

Deepak Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others