Disposed

Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Next Friend Rajesh Yadav Alias Yogi and 4 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Judicial Member and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2025WRIB/357/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of three mutation orders passed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Noting that mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal only and that the petitioners had earlier withdrawn their appeal against the Tehsildar's order, the court declined to entertain the petition and disposed of it with liberty to institute a regular suit for adjudication of title.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Next Friend… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22967

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 357 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Next Friend Rajesh Yadav Alias Yogi And 4 Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Judicial Member And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Verma,Rajan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to the private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for following main relief(s) :-

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quash the impugned order dated 18.12.2023, passed by the respondent no.1 i.e. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow through its Judicial Member in REV/1139/2021, computerized case no. R20210423001139, under section-210 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir & others Vs. Km. Nirmala Rawat, the impugned jugdment and order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Additional Officer (First), Ayodhya in case no.05889/2019, computerized case no.T201904230105889, under section-35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir & others Vs. Km. Nirmala Rawat and the impugned order dated 03.06.2014, passed by the respondent no.3 i.e. Tehsildar (Judicial) Sadar, Faizabad in case no.533/Va.Da., computerized case no. T20130423014522, under section-34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Km. Nirmala Rawat Vs. Ram Narayan, contained as Annexure No.1 to 3 to this writ petition."

¶11

Impugned order 18.12.2023 passed by the opposite party No.1/Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow in Revision No. REV/1139/2021, Computerized Case No. R20210423001139 (Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir & others Vs. Km. Nirmala Rawat), instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") affirms the order(s) dated 12.03.2021, passed by respondent No.2/Additional Officer (First), Ayodhya in Case No. 05889/2019, instituted under Section 35(2) of the Code of 2006 and 03.06.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3/Tehsildar (Judicial) Sadar, Faizabad in Case No. 533/Va.Da., instituted under Section 34 of the Code of 2006.

¶12

Thus, the subject matter of the present petition relates to mutation proceedings.

¶13

It is to be noted 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. 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.

¶14

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, makes it clear that no mutation order shall debar any person from establishing his rights in the land by means of a regular suit.

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid and also that the impugned order dated 03.06.2014 passed by Tehsildar concerned in mutation case was challenged by the petitioners by means of an appeal and this appeal was withdrawn without taking leave to file fresh appeal, as appears from the copy of the order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure No. 11 to this petition) and thereafter, another appeal, which itself was not maintainable, challenging the order dated 03.06.2014 was filed and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.03.2021 affirmed vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023 and also that the dispute in issue pertaining to rights over the property in dispute could be decided in regular proceedings by adducing appropriate evidence and not in summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings, I am not inclined to entertain this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular suit for their rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case, as such, it is expected that the concerned authority/court, if suit is filed, would pass the order(s) after due consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties as also the law on the issue involved.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Arun/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Next Friend Rajesh Yadav Alias Yogi and 4 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Judicial Member and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thakur Ram Janki Ji Virajman Mandir Thru. Next Friend Rajesh Yadav Alias Yogi and 4 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Judicial Member and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shashank @ Shashank Dubey and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Kamla Devi Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Awadhesh Bahadur Singh Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Kainoor (Sikander Alias Kohinoor Written in Complaint) and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Umapati Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 5 Others