# Alladin v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 236
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 21993 of 2022
- **Bench:** Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alladin-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49135
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Revenue Law - The U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Sections 32, 38(1) & 210 -
summary
proceedings
relating
to
correction of revenue records do not
decide any question of title and the orders
passed in such proceedings do not come in
way of a person getting his rights
adjudicated in a regular suit - writ
petitions arising out of such summary
proceedings, are not to be entertained in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India - an entry in
revenue records does not confer title on a
person whose name appears in records-ofrights - such entries are only for 'fiscal
purposes' - no ownership is conferred on
the basis thereof - question of title of a
1 All. Alladin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
property can only be decided by a
competent court having jurisdiction in
such matter.(Para - 6,9)

Entertainability of a writ petition - against orders
passed in summary proceedings - order passed
by Sub Divisional Magistrate and Additional
Commissioner (Judicial).

HELD:-Refusal
of
Court
to
exercise
its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226
against orders passed in summary proceedings
would be subject to the exceptions as laid down
in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of
Revenue and 6 Others. Exceptions not
attracted in facts of either of the writ petitions.
Does not wish to press the petitions. Petitioners
would seek declaration of their rights by
instituting proceedings before the appropriate
forum. (Para -18,19)

Petitions Disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had cancelled the agreement to sell.
Moreover, mere agreement to sell does not
confer any title in the property. The suit
that was filed was for permanent injunction
and
damages
and
not
for
specific
performance. Additionally, as per Clause P2, no transfer is permissible without
permission of the Authority and that too,
when transfer was made after execution of
the lease deed. In the instant case, no lease
deed was ever executed, so even otherwise,
the Authority could not have taken notice
of any such transaction. Therefore, the
stand taken by the Authority that it would
not return the money to the petitioner until
the suit filed by the intervenor remains
pending is also not sustainable in law. It
should have left the inter se dispute
between them to be decided in the suit.

12. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that the petitioner who
had been deliberately deprived of the returns
on her investment solely attributable to the
Authority is entitled to interest at the rate of
4% per annum from the date of deposit till
the date acquisition was set aside by the
Supreme Court that is 15.4.2011 and @ 12%
per annum for the period beyond it until the
date of actual payment.

13. We also note that not only the
petitioner has been put to harassment by the
respondent-Authority, but also has had to
incur litigation expenses for which too she
ought to be compensated.

14. In the result, the petition stands
allowed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be
paid by Greater Noida Authority to the
petitioner within two weeks.

15. Before parting, we clarify that we
should not be understood to have expressed
opinion on any issue involved in the suit
filed by the intervenor. All pleas and
contentions therein are left open for being
decided without being influenced by any
observations made herein.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 236
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 21993 of 2022
And
Writ-C No. 22082 of 2022

Alladin ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, Sri Dharmendra
Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ishir Sripat, Sri Krishna Kant
Singh, Sri Mithilesh Kumar Mishra, Sri
Saurabh Patel

(A) Revenue Law - The U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 - Sections 32, 38(1) & 210 -
summary
proceedings
relating
to
correction of revenue records do not
decide any question of title and the orders
passed in such proceedings do not come in
way of a person getting his rights
adjudicated in a regular suit - writ
petitions arising out of such summary
proceedings, are not to be entertained in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India - an entry in
revenue records does not confer title on a
person whose name appears in records-ofrights - such entries are only for 'fiscal
purposes' - no ownership is conferred on
the basis thereof - question of title of a
1 All. Alladin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
property can only be decided by a
competent court having jurisdiction in
such matter.(Para - 6,9)

Entertainability of a writ petition - against orders
passed in summary proceedings - order passed
by Sub Divisional Magistrate and Additional
Commissioner (Judicial).

HELD:-Refusal
of
Court
to
exercise
its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226
against orders passed in summary proceedings
would be subject to the exceptions as laid down
in case of Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of
Revenue and 6 Others. Exceptions not
attracted in facts of either of the writ petitions.
Does not wish to press the petitions. Petitioners
would seek declaration of their rights by
instituting proceedings before the appropriate
forum. (Para -18,19)

Petitions Disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Kalawati Vs The B.O.R. & ors. , 2022
(4) ADJ 578

2. Harish Chandra Vs U.O.I. & ors. , 2019 (5)
ADJ 212 (DB)

3. Mahesh Kumar Juneja & anr. Vs A.C.J.
Moradabad Division & ors., 2020 (146) RD 545

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. The two writ petitions are based on
similar set of facts and raise common
questions of law, accordingly with the
consent of the parties, the petitions are
being taken up for hearing together.

2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents, Sri Ishir Sripat, learned
counsel for the private respondents and Sri
Pawan Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri
K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Gram
Sabha.

3. Writ C No. 21993 of 2022 has been
filed seeking to assail the order dated
7.6.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate,
Kasganj
in
Case
No.
RST/03294 of 2018 (Computer Case No.
T201818750103294, Alladin vs. State of
U.P.) under Section 38(1) of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order
dated 24.2.2022 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh in Case
No. 00051/2020 (Computer Case No. C
202018000000051,
Alladin
vs.
Gram
Panchayat and others) under Section 210 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

4. Writ C No.-22082 of 2022 has been
filed challenging the order dated 7.6.2019
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Kasganj in Case No. RST/03292 of 2018
(Computer Case No. T201818750103292,
Alladin vs. State of U.P.) under Section
38(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and
also the order dated 24.2.2022 passed by
the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
Aligarh
in
Case
No.
00052/2020
(Computer Case No. C 202018000000052,
Alladin vs. Gram Panchayat and others)
under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006.

5. On the previous occasion an
objection had been raised by the counsel
appearing for the State respondents and the
counsel
appearing
for
the
private
respondents
with
regard
to
the
entertainability of the writ petition by
pointing out that the petition arises out of
summary proceedings under Sections 32/38
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. Counsel for the petitioners after
making submissions to some extent has
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fairly conceded to the settled legal position
that summary proceedings relating to
correction of revenue records do not decide
any question of title and the orders passed
in such proceedings do not come in way of
a person getting his rights adjudicated in a
regular suit and it is for the said reason, that
a consistent view has been taken by the
courts that writ petitions arising out of such
summary proceedings, are not to be
entertained in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In regard to the aforestated legal
proposition, counsel for the parties are ad
idem, and have placed reliance on the
recent judgement of this Court in Smt.
Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue and
6 Others.

8. The question of entertainability of a
writ petition against orders passed in
summary proceedings has come up before
this Court earlier and it has consistently
been held that normally the High Court in
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction
would not entertain writ petitions which
arise out of such proceedings.

9. The settled legal position that an
entry in revenue records does not confer
title on a person whose name appears in
records-of-rights and that such entries are
only for 'fiscal purposes' and no ownership
is conferred on the basis thereof, and
further that the question of title of a
property can only be decided by a
competent court having jurisdiction in such
matters, has been restated in recent
decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra
vs. Union of India & Ors., Mahesh
Kumar
Juneja
and
another
vs.
Additional
Commissioner
Judicial
Moradabad Division and others, and
Smt. Kalawati vs. The Board of Revenue
and 6 Others (supra).

10. The reluctance of the Courts to
interfere with orders arising out of
mutation proceedings is primarily for the
reason that the question at issue is with
regard to correction of record-of-rights
which
is
primarily
maintained
for
revenue purposes and an entry therein has
reference only to possession and does not
ordinarily confer upon the person in
whose favour it is made any title to the
property in question.

11. The aforesaid inference that
revenue entries made on the basis of orders
of mutation do not ordinarily confer upon a
person in whose favour they are made, any
title to the property in question, stands
fortified
from
the
express
provision
contained under Section 39 of the Code
which states in clear terms that the orders
passed under the provisions relating to
mutation of revenue records would not act
as a bar against any person from
establishing his rights to the land by means
of a declaratory suit.

12. Section 39 of the Code, as
referred to above, is being extracted below
:-

"39. Certain orders of Revenue
Officers not to debar a suit :- No order
passed by a Revenue Inspector under
Section 33, or by a Tehsildar under subsection (1) of Section 35 or by a SubDivisional Officer under sub-section (3) of
Section 38 or by a Commissioner under
sub-section (2) of Section 35 or sub-section
(4) of Section 38 shall debar any person
from establishing his rights to the land by
means of a suit under Section 144."
1 All. Alladin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
239

13. The aforementioned section
clearly provides that no person shall be
debarred from establishing his rights to the
land by means of a declaratory suit under
Section 144, irrespective of the fact that an
order has been passed by; (i) a Revenue
Inspector under Section 33 (mutation in
case of succession), or (ii) a Tehsildar
under sub-section (1) of Section 35
(mutation in case of transfer or succession),
or (iii) a Sub-Divisional Officer under subsection (3) of Section 38 (correction of
error or omission), or (iv) a Commissioner
under sub-section (4) of Section 38
(correction of error or omission).

14. Section 39 which expressly
provides that the orders passed by revenue
officers in cases of a mutation and
correction of revenue entries would not
debar filing of a declaratory suit, is a
substantive provision, and corresponds to a
similar provision contained under Section
40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue, 1901 (now
repealed).

15. The language of the section
emphasizes that it applies to all orders
passed by the revenue officers in matters
relating to mutation and correction of errors
or omission of revenue entries and it
provides in clear terms that such order shall
not debar any person from establishing his
rights to the land by means of a declaratory
suit under Section 144.

16. The object of the section being to
enable a person to seek declaration of his
rights on questions of title irrespective of the
orders passed in mutation proceedings with
regard to correction of revenue entries, the
remedy of seeking a declaration on questions
of title by filing a declaration suit remains
open. The existence of an efficacious
statutory alternative remedy would therefore
also be a reason for not entertaining a writ
petition
in
exercise
of
discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226.

17. It may be added as a word of
caution that the rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion and existence of an alternate
remedy would not divest the High Court of
its powers under Article 226 which may be
exercised in appropriate cases.

18. The refusal of the Court to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 in such matters would be subject to the
exceptions as laid down in the case of Smt.
Kalawati (supra), which are as follows:-

(i) the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction;

(ii) rights and title of the parties
have already been decided by a competent
court, and that has been varied in these
proceedings;

(iii) the order has been passed after
entering into questions relating to entitlement,
touching the merits of the rival claims;

(iv) rights have been created which
are against provisions of any statute, or the
entry itself confers a title by virtue of some
statutory provision;

(v) the order has been obtained on
the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of
facts, or by fabricating documents;

(vi) the order suffers from some
patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where
there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of
jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction;

(vii) there has been a violation of
principles of natural justice.

19. Counsel for the petitioners, has
fairly
submitted
that
the
aforestated
exceptions with regard to the rule of
exhaustion of statutory remedy, would not
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be attracted in the facts of either of the writ
petitions. Learned counsel states that he
does not wish to press the petitions and that
the petitioners would seek declaration of
their rights by instituting proceedings
before the appropriate forum.

20. Counsel for the State respondents
and the counsel for the private respondents
have no objection.

21. The writ petitions stand disposed
of in terms of the prayer so made.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 240
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 22149 of 2000

Murali ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.R. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 115-A/Form 49-A , 115-C - Notice -
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 9, 49,
117, 198, 122-B - Powers of the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
- If any property of Gram Sabha is
damaged or misappropriated, the Land
Management Committee and the Collector
are duty bound to take action - no right by
way of adverse possession accrues over
the land of the State - Long standing
possession does not confer any right to
any person over the land of the State or
the Gram Panchayat - no limitation
regarding dispossession of any person as
the such person cannot take plea that he
is in occupation since long because his
possession over the Gram Panchayat land
is illegal - no limitation for the eviction of
an unauthorized occupant. (Para
-
11,22,23 )

Property in suit belongs to Gram Panchayat land
- no objection during consolidation proceedings
- no allotment to petitioner - petitioner an
unauthorized
occupant
-
responsible
for
damaging, misappropriating, illegally retaining
and occupying property of Gram Panchayat -
petitioner liable to be evicted - to pay
compensation for damages, misappropriation
and wrongful occupation over the property in
suit - recoverable from him as arrears of land
revenue - revision by state - held - no evidence
to establish possession since before abolition of
zamindari - order to evict petitioner.(Para -19 )

HELD:-Petitioner
not
in
possession
and
occupation since before zamindari abolition, but
later
occupied
land
after
consolidation
proceedings
over
banjar
land
of
Gram
Panchayat, resulting in Rank trespasser and
responsibility
to
pay
damages
for
misappropriating and unauthorizedly occupying
the land. Order of revisional court upheld.
(Para -28 )

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chob Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2000 RD 233

2. Suraj Bali Vs Gaon Sabha , 1982 AWC (R) 149

3. Shripati Vs Gaon Sabha , 1994 (23) ALR (R)
18

4. Uttam Singh Vs B.O.R. , 1980 AWC 600

5. Sukhdev Vs Collector, Banda , 2007 (102)
RD 83 (HC)

6. Dal Singh Vs Additional Collector, Meerut ,
2006 (101) RD (H) 7 (HC)