Disposed

Kailash Nath and Another v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 9 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025WRIC/3727/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a series of revenue orders in mutation proceedings favouring parties claiming through a registered sale deed, while their own claim rested on a registered Will. The High Court held mutation proceedings do not decide title, declined to interfere, and disposed of the petition with liberty to pursue a pending restoration application for adjudication of rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kailash Nath and Another Vs Addl. Commissioner… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22318

¶2

Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3727 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kailash Nath And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶6

The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-

¶7

"i.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration )Devi Patan Mandal Gonda in revision bearing No. 377/2022 computerized case No. C- 202208000000377(Kailash Nath versus Rajesh Kumar and others) U/S 210 of Uttar Revenue code 2006 and also quash the order dated 21.3.2022 passed by the Up Ziladhikari Tahsil Bhinga, District Shrawasti in case No.01931/2021 computerized case No. T 202108620101931(Vijay Bahadur and others versus Rajesh Kumar and others )U/S 207 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Cod 2006, and also quash the order dated 19.3.2021 and order dated 24.12.2020 passed by the Teshsildar (Judicial), Tehsil Bhinga, District Shravawasti. In case No.03736/2020(Sushma Yadav and others versus Rajesh Kumar and others. Contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1,2,3&4 of the writ petition.

¶8

ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. Parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute."

¶9

Considering the aforesaid as also the following facts:-

¶10

(i) The claim/case of the petitioners is based upon registered 'Will' dated 31.05.2003 and genuineness of the 'Will' cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings i.e. mutation proceedings.

¶11

(ii) The claim/case of the opposite party nos. 6 and 7, in whose favour the impugned orders have been passed by the revenue authorities, is based upon the registered sale deed dated 08.10.2020 executed by opposite party nos. 4 and 5, sons of real brother of petitioners namely Keshav Ram.

¶12

(iii) The Tehsildar passed the order in mutation proceedings on 24.12.2020.

¶13

(iv) After the order dated 24.12.2020, the petitioners preferred an application seeking recall of order dated 24.12.2020, which was rejected vide order dated 19.03.2021 and thereafter the appellate authority also affirmed the order dated 19.03.2021 vide its order dated 27.03.2021 and thereafter, the revision was also dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2025 affirming the order dated 19.03.2021 and 27.03.2021 passed by revenue court of first instance and appellate authority, respectively.

¶14

(v) It would be relevant to indicate that the petitioners have also instituted a case under Section 144 of the Act of 2006, which was dismissed for want of prosecution, and the restoration application filed by the petitioners is pending consideration.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

7. 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid as also that the issue involved in this petition i.e. the issue related to validity/genuineness of unregistered 'Will' dated 31.05.2003, which requires proper adjudication, I am not inclined to interfere in this petition, which is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the restoration application pending in regular suit filed by the petitioners for their rights over the property in dispute.

¶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, would pass the order 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 :- 21.4.2025 Jyoti/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kailash Nath and Another v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kailash Nath and Another v. Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 9 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

Ram Pal Vs Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Lko. Division, Lko. and Others

Budhiram Yadav Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 4 Others

Sansey Alam Vs Board Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Registrar and Another

Om Prakash and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shrawasti and Others

Satyendra Kumar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. Chairman, Lko., U.P. and 11 Others

Rakesh Kumar and Another Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi and 2 Others