Disposed

Bablu Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025WRIC/3439/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against orders in mutation proceedings founded on a registered Will whose genuineness was disputed and subject of an FIR with charge sheet filed. Holding that mutation proceedings are summary and do not decide title, the court declined to entertain the petition and permitted the petitioners to seek declaration of rights by a regular suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to institute a regular suit for declaration of their rights over the dispute land before the appropriate court/forum.

Bablu Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20291

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3439 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Bablu Kumar And Others

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalji Yadav,Abhijeet Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶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 quashing the impugned the order dated 5.2.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the opposite party No. 5 as contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition.

¶11

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute."

¶12

Impugned order 05.02.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj dismissed the Revision No. 1347/2016, Computerized Case No. C201602001347 (Sukhdev vs. Babulal and others), under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") affirms the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the respondent No. 5/Naib Tehsildar, Babaganj, Tehsil- Kunda, District- Pratapgarh in Mutation Case No. 869/255, under Section 34 of the Act of 1901.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

in the land by means of a regular suit.

¶17

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.

¶18

Considered the aforesaid and also the fact(s) that (i) as per the side opposite, Badal s/o Vishram died on 15.06.1986 and therefore, a registered 'Will' dated 30.09.2002, favourable to the petitioners, is forged; (ii) in relation to the registered 'Will' in issue dated 30.09.2002, an FIR was lodged, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0079 on 16.03.2017 and the Investigating Officer has already filed the charge sheet in the same; (iii) the application preferred by the side opposite for recall of the order dated 28.02.2005, being ex-parte, was not contested by the father of the petitioners despite service of notice; (iv) the claim of the petitioners and their father, who died during pendency of the revision, in which the order dated 05.02.2025, impugned herein, has been passed, is based upon the 'Will' dated 30.09.2002 and genuineness of this 'Will' cannot be adjudicated in the mutation proceedings, which are summary in nature.

¶19

Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to institute a regular suit for declaration of their rights over the property in dispute before appropriate Court/Forum.

¶20

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.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2025

¶23

Arun/-

¶24

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

Bablu Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. 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

Karuna Krishna and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya and Others

Adwait Pratap Singh Vs Naib Tehsildar Aashupur Devsara, Tehsil Patti, Pratapgarh and Others

Vinod Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others Etariat,Up,Lucknow and 11 Others

Meraj Ahmad Khan Vs Commissioner Lko. Division Lko. and 12 Others

Suneel Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Phoolchand and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Gonda and Others