The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a revision regarding land revenue entry. The Court held that revenue entries are fiscal and do not adjudicate title; therefore, such challenges must be made through a suit.
The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 543 of 2006 (M/S)
Mohabbat Singh …...Petitioner Versus Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner and others …… Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Devendra Pant, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr.
Dated: 24th July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is adjudicating the case before this Court being aggrieved against the order dated 24th March, 2006, passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court), Nainital, by exercising his powers under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act. By the order impugned, the Revision preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
The facts as brought on record by the petitioner is that a proceedings was initiated under U.P. Survey Rules, 1978, and an order was passed as back as on 26th March, 1997, for recording his name as per the orders of Surveyor Naib Tehsildar.
Against this order, State of Uttarakhand, preferred a Revision, being Revision No.52/67 of 2000-2001, raising a question with regard to the propriety of the order as to whether the powers exercised while directing to record the name would fall to be within the ambit of Section 54 (6) of
2
the Land Revenue Act or not and as to whether the Assistant Record Officer had any right to adjudicate the title.
The Revision preferred by the State was decided by the Additional District Magistrate and the Revision of the State was allowed and the order dated 26th March, 1997, has been set aside. Against this order, the petitioner has invoked Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act and preferred Revision, being Revision No. 287 of 2004-05, before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner (Circuit Court), Nainital, but the said revision has been dismissed and thereby the order of A.D.M., Revenue has been affirmed. Hence, the present petition.
It is settled law that the proceedings held for recording the name in the revenue record are the proceedings which do not create any title in favour of the person in whose favour the same has been directed to be recorded in the revenue record. These are the entries which are fiscal in nature and they only settle a person from whom the State would be entitled to receive the land revenue or other dues under law, in the event of default and, that is why, it has been consistently held that such entries under Section 54 read with 210 and 219 of the Land Revenue Act, they are fiscal in nature and they do not adjudicate right or title in relation to the land. Hence, the writ petition, against such an order not involving the question of title only confined with regard as to whose names will continue to be recorded in the revenue record, for the purpose of land revenue, are summary proceedings and writ petition is not maintainable.
The said view is affirmed by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Manorama Devi and others Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others reported in
3
[ 2004 (97) RD 696] , wherein, the Court has held that making revenue entries in the revenue records by an authority under the Land Revenue Act, there is no adjudication of title and thus, the writ petition would not be maintainable.
This view is subscribed by the earlier judgment also rendered by Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahaband and other, reported in AIR 1957 Alld. 205, in a writ petition under Article 226 made against the order of Board of Revenue entering name of certain person in record of rights has observed that “it has been the consistent practice of High Courts not to interfere with orders made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioners should be entered in the record of rights or not. That record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favor it is made any title to the property in question.” Ultimately, the writ petition has been dismissed.
The Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others, reported in Allahabad Civil Journal Vol.XXVI 1997 (1) 126 has held in paragraph 7 as under:
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having scrutinised the judgment of the trial Judge as well as that of the lower appellate court, we find sufficient force in all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. At the outset, it may be noticed that the plaintiff had filed the suit claiming half interest for herself and claiming half interest in favour of the husband and sons of Roori and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error to hold that the plaintiff could not have filed the suit in question. In view of rival stand of the parties the
4
main question that arose for consideration was whether Roori was daughter of Gurbax Singh or Inder Kaur, defendant no. 5 was the daughter of same Gurbax Singh? The learned trial Judge after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record both oral and documentary came to the positive conclusion that it was Roori who was the daughter of Gurbax Singh as alleged by the plaintiff and not Inder Kaur. The lower appellate Court without focusing his attention to the weighty reasons advanced by the trial court and without examining the materials on record in that respect even did not set aside the said finding of the trial Judge and yet reversed the decree of the trial Judge. We have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said judgment of the Additional District Judge is wholly unsustainable in law. The crucial point being as to who was the second daughter of Gurbax Singh, namely Roori or Inder Kaur, and the trial Judge having come to the positive conclusion that it was Roori who was the second daughter of Gurbax Singh, the lower appellate Court was not justified in not considering the material evidence as well as reasons advanced by the trial Judge and merely coming to the conclusion that the evidence on the file do not prove Roori to be the daughter of Gurbax Singh. Further, the lower appellate Court has not come to any positive finding that Inder Kaur was the daughter of Gurbax Singh. He has been swayed away by the so called mutation in the revenue record in favour of Inder Kaur. Mutation of a property in the 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 in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment. That apart, as it would be seen, the learned trial Judge had considered the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties to establish the respective stand as to who was the second daughter of Gurbax Singh and on perusal of the same came to the conclusion that it was Roori who was the second daughter of Gurbax Singh. The Additional District Judge has not even discussed anything about the said oral evidence and the reasonings advanced by learned trial Judge in coming to the conclusion that it was Roori who was the second
5
daughter of Gurbax Singh Non consideration of the oral evidence adduced by the parties, by the lower appellate Court vitiates the ultimate conclusion on the question whether Roori was daughter of Gurbax Singh or not. It is further seen that Gurdip Kaur, widow of Gurbax Singh had executed a Will in respect of the entire estate in favour of plaintiff and Roori and after death of Gurdip Kaur a succession certificate had been issued by the civil court under the Indian Succession Act in favour of plaintiff and said Roori. The said succession certificate and rights flowing therefrom cannot be ignored. Admittedly no attempt has been made by defendant nos. 1 to 4 to annul the succession certificate on the grounds available under the Succession Act. The Additional District Judge committed serious error of law in not considering the said Will and the succession certificate in question which unequivocally clinches the matter and thereby the ultimate judgment of the Additional District Judge is vitiated. The High Court also was in error in not examining these questions and dismissing the Second Appeal in limine.”
Yet again in another judgment the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And others, reported in Allahabad Civil Journal Vol.XXXVIII 1998 (1) 43 has held in paragraph 21 and 27 as under:
“21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr. Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of mutation no. 1311 dated 19.7.54, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Smt. Sawarni's case, Pattanaik J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows:-
"7…..Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it nay presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in
6
question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment."
7
affect the reversionary rights of reversioners. As noticed already, mutation entries will not convey or extinguish title in the property. Therefore, under Mutation No. 1311 neither Balwant Singh and Kartar Singh acquired title nor Durga Devi's title in the property got extinguished. The earlier court proceedings did not and could not convey title in favour of reversioner, as the relief sought was for a simple declaration as mentioned above. If no title as such was passed on under the alleged `mutation gift', the limited right of the widow in the property would get enlarged on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.”
Thus the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability only. However, this judgment will not preclude the petitioner from seeking his appropriate remedy for declaration of his rights by filing an independent suit before the competent Court.
24.07.2017 Shiv
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition maintaining that revenue entries adjudicate title to land is maintainable.
Whether mutation of a name in revenue records creates or extinguishes title or is purely fiscal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Manorama Devi and others Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and othersRelied on¶17
[2004 (97) RD 696]
Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahaband and otherExplained¶19
AIR 1957 Alld. 205 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and othersExplained¶20
Allahabad Civil Journal Vol.XXVI 1997 (1) 126
Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by Lrs. And othersExplained¶27
Allahabad Civil Journal Vol.XXXVIII 1998 (1) 43
Gurbaksh Singh v. Nikka SinghReferred¶31
1963 Supp. (1) SCR 55 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohabbat Singh
Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner and others
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
