# Mahesh Kumar Juneja & Anr v. Additional Commissioner

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 2016
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 45595 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-kumar-juneja-anr-v-additional-commissioner-45680
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34 -
Mutation
proceedings
u/s
34
are
summary in nature- do not decide title or
rights - Writ Petition not maintainable
against summary proceedings.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Harish Chand & Ors. Vs. Commissioner Varanasi Division, District Varanasi & Ors. 2017
has rightly dismissed the revision of the petitioner
holding that he is not an aggrieved person and
therefore, not competent to maintain the
application for cancellation, which finding this
Court is in complete agreement with, this writ
petition without merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 2016

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 45595 of 2008

Mahesh Kumar Juneja & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Muradabad Division, Muradabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri K. Ajit, Sri Arvind Srivastava III, Sri Prateek
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri D.V. Jaiswal, Sri G.C. Pant, Sri Harsh Vikram

A. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34 -
Mutation
proceedings
u/s
34
are
summary in nature- do not decide title or
rights - Writ Petition not maintainable
against summary proceedings.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Jaipal Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad
& Ors.AIR 1957 All 205

2. Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of Revenue,U.P.,
Lucknow & Ors.,2002 (1) AWC 169

3. Bindeshwari Vs. Board of Revenue &
Ors.,2002 (1) AWC 498
4. Buddh Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,
2012 (5) ADJ 266

5. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import
and Export Company & Ors, (2019) 3 SCC 191

6. Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223

7. Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137

8. Narawamma Vs. State of Karnataka, (2009)
5 SCC 591

9. Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12

10.Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736

11. Union of India and othersVs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.,
(2014) 2 SCC 269

12.Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India &Ors.,
2019 (5) ADJ 212 (DB)

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

1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar,
advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind
Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri D.V. Jaiswal alongwith
Sri G.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing
for respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. The present petition has been filed
seeking
to
assail
the
order
dated
28.01.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Milak, Rampur/respondent no.2
and also the order dated 25.07.2008 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad/respondent
no.1
in
proceedings arising out of Section 34 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 19011.

3. In terms of the order dated
28.01.2008 passed by respondent no.2 the
2018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal filed by respondent no.4 was
allowed and the matter was remitted back
to the court below leaving it open to the
parties to raise their contentions on merits
of the case.

4.

The
revisional
court
has
specifically recorded a finding that the
mutation court had erred in rejecting the
objections filed by the respondents without
due consideration thereof and in view of
the same the order passed in the appeal
remitting the matter for consideration
afresh did not suffer from any error. It has
also been recorded that the order passed in
the appeal being simply an order of
remand for a fresh decision on merits after
consideration of the maintainability of the
objections leaving it open to the parties to
place all contentions on the merits of the
case there was no occasion for the
revisional court to interfere in the matter.

5. Counsel for the petitioners has not
been able to point out any material error or
irregularity in the orders passed by the
courts below so as warrant interference.

6. This apart the counsel for the
petitioners has also not been able to give
any
satisfactory
response
to
the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
the
counsel for the respondents that the
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act,
1901 are summary in nature and ordinarily
a writ petition against such orders is not
entertained.

7. The question of the maintainability
of a writ petition against orders passed in
mutation 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
does not entertain writ petitions against
such orders which arise out of summary
proceedings.

8. In the case of Jaipal Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P., Allahabad & Ors.2
notice was taken of the consistent practice
of this Court not to interfere with the
orders made by the Board of Revenue in
cases in which the only question at issue
was whether the name of the petitioner
should be entered in the record of rights.
The observations made in the judgment in
this regard are as follows:-

"3. ...It has however been the
consistent practice of this Court 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 petitioner should be entered in the
record of rights.

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
favour it is made any title to the property
in question..."

9. The question with regard to the
maintainability of a writ petition arising out of
mutation proceedings fell for consideration in
the case of Sri Lal Bachan Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ors.3 and it was
held that the High Court does not entertain a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the reason that
mutation proceedings are only summarily
drawn on the basis of possession and the
parties have a right to get the title adjudicated
by regular suit. The observations made in the
judgment are extracted below:-

"17. This Court has consistently
taken the view as is apparent from the
1 All. Mahesh Kumar Juneja & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Muradabad Division, Muradabad & Ors. 2019
decisions of this Court referred above that
writ petition challenging the orders passed
in mutation proceedings are not to be
entertained. To my mind, apart from there
being
remedy
of
getting
the
title
adjudicated in regular suit, there is one
more reason for not entertaining such writ
petition. The orders passed under Section
34 of the Act are only based on possession
which do not determine the title of the
parties. Even if this Court entertains the
writ petition and decides the writ petition
on merits, the orders passed in mutation
proceedings
will
remain
orders
in
summary proceedings and the orders
passed in the proceedings will not finally
determine the title of the parties.

18.
In
view
of
the
above
discussions, it is clear that although the writ
petition arising out of the mutation proceedings
cannot be held to be non-maintainable but this
Court does not entertain the writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution due to reason
that parties have right to get the title
adjudicated by regular suit and the orders
passed in mutation proceedings are summary
in nature."

10. A similar view was reiterated in
the case of Bindeshwari Vs. Board of
Revenue & Ors.4, wherein it was stated
as follows:-

"11. ...The present writ petition
arising out of the summary proceeding of
mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land
Revenue Act, cannot be entertained under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
mutation proceedings do not adjudicate the
rights of the parties and orders passed in the
mutation are always subject to adjudication by
the competent court."

11. Taking note of the nature and
scope of mutation proceedings which are
summary in nature and also the fact that
orders in such proceedings are passed on
the basis of possession of the parties and
no substantive rights are decided, this
Court in Buddh Pal Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.5, restated the principle that
ordinarily a writ petition in respect of
orders passed in mutation proceedings is
not maintainable. It was observed as
follows:-

"6. The law is well-settled that:

(i) mutation proceedings are
summary in nature wherein title of the
parties over the land involved is not
decided;

(ii) mutation order or revenue
entries are only for the fiscal purposes to
enable the State to collect revenue from
the person recorded;

(iii) they neither extinguish nor
create title;

(iv) the order of mutation does
not in any way effect the title of the parties
over the land in dispute; and

(v) such orders or entries are not
documents of title and are subject to
decision of the competent court.

7. It is equally settled that the
orders for mutation are passed on the basis
of the possession of the parties and since
no substantive rights of the parties are
decided
in
mutation
proceedings,
ordinarily
a
writ
petition
is
not
maintainable in respect of orders passed in
mutation proceedings unless found to be
totally without jurisdiction or contrary to
the title already decided by the competent
court. The parties are always free to get
their rights in respect of the disputed land
adjudicated by competent court."

12. The proposition that mutation
entries in revenue records do not create or
extinguish title over land nor such entries
2020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have any presumptive value on title has
been restated in a recent judgment in the
case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar
Vs.
Arthur
Import
and
Export
Company & Ors.6 placing reliance upon
earlier judgments in the case of Sawarni
Vs. Inder Kaur7, Balwant Singh Vs.
Daulat Singh8 and Narawamma Vs.
State of Karnataka9. The observations
made in the judgment are as follows:-

"6. This Court has consistently
held that mutation of a land in the revenue
records does not create or extinguish the
title over such land nor it has any
presumptive value on the title. It only
enables the person in whose favour
mutation is ordered to pay the land
revenue in question. (See Sawarni v. Inder
Kaur, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and
Narasamma v. State of Karnataka)."

13. Reference may also be had to the
judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin10,
wherein it was held that the revenue
authorities cannot decide questions of title
and that mutation takes place only for
certain purposes. The observations made
by the Supreme Court in the said order are
as follows:-

''45. Revenue authorities of the
State
are
concerned
with
revenue.
Mutation takes place only for certain
purposes. The statutory rules must be held
to be operating in a limited sense... It is
well-settled that an entry in the revenue
records is not a document of title. Revenue
authorities cannot decide a question of
title.''

14. A similar observation was made
in Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh11, wherein it was held
as follows:-

''19. Record-of-right is not a
document of title. Entries made therein in
terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act
although are admissible as a relevant piece
of evidence and although the same may
also carry a presumption of correctness,
but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that
such a presumption is rebuttable...''

15. In Union of India and others
Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society
Limited & Ors.12, the same legal position
has again been stated in the following
terms:-

''21. This Court in several
judgments has held that the revenue
records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the
City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah [(1989) 3
SCC 612] this Court held that: (SCC p.
615, para 5)

''5. ...It is firmly established that
the revenue records are not documents of
title, and the question of interpretation of a
document not being a document of title is
not a question of law.''

In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan
Chand [(1993) 4 SCC 349] this Court has
held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2)

''2.
...that
entries
in
the
Jamabandi are not proof of title.''

In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram
[(1996) 11 SCC 257] this Court held that:
(SCC p. 259, para 5)

''5. ...an entry in the revenue
papers by no stretch of imagination can
form the basis for declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiffs.''

16. The settled legal position that
entries in revenue records do not confer
any
title
has
been
considered
and
discussed in a recent judgment of this
Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of
India & Ors.13.
1 All. Mahesh Kumar Juneja & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Muradabad Division, Muradabad & Ors. 2021

17. In view of the foregoing
discussion, it may be restated that
ordinarily orders passed by mutation
courts are not to be interfered in writ
jurisdiction as they are in summary
proceedings, and as such subject to a
regular suit.

18. The mutation proceedings being
of a summary nature drawn on the basis of
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. In view thereof this Court has
consistently held that such petitions are not
to be entertained in exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

19. The writ petition thus fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------