The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) asserted that the mutation proceedings, being of a summary nature drawn based on possession, do not decide any question of title, and the orders passed in such proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to file suit before the competent court of jurisdiction, along with an application for an interim stay.
Referring to the mutation proceedings where the petitioner as well as the opposite party is staking their claim to the disputed property based on two separate registered wills dated May 28, 2001, and September 1, 1997, the Court explained that the mutation proceedings are only confined for a person who is liable to pay revenue and do not declare the title or rights of any party and the said property.
In case the petitioner wishes to ascertain his title to the disputed land, the only remedy open to him is to file a suit before a court of competent jurisdiction, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed that the record of rights 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 favour it is made any title to the property in question.
The Bench clarified that the orders passed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are only based on possession, which do not determine the title of the parties, and even if this Court entertains the writ petition and decides the same on merits, the orders passed in mutation proceedings will remain orders in summary proceedings and will not finally determine the title of the parties.
Therefore, while reiterating that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land, nor does it confer any presumptive value on the title, the Bench concluded that the mutation order or revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded; they does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred based on such entries.
Briefly, the dispute pertains to the land situated at Sultanpur District, which was claimed to belong to one Prabhudeen, son of Jeevan Lal, who had executed a registered will deed in favour of the petitioners, while on the other hand, the private respondents have claimed the said property based on a registered will deed executed by Prabhudeen. The dispute with regard to the validity of both the wills came to be adjudicated by the Tehsildar (Judicial), wherein the application of the petitioner was rejected, and the property was directed to be mutated in the name of the opposite party. The appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sultanpur, was also rejected, and lastly, the revision against the said order was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division.
Appearances:
Advocates Girish Kumar Pandey and Sher Bahadur Yadav, for the Petitioner
C.S.C., Prashant Vikram Singh, for the Respondent
