# Rakesh Kumar Goel v. Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-goel-v-commissioner-moradabad-ors-43251
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- UP Land revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34
-
Mutation
proceeding
-
Nature
-
Maintainability of writ - Held, an entry in
revenue records is only for fiscal purpose
and does not confer title on a person
whose name appears in record-of-rights
and title to the property can only be
decided by a competent civil court - 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. (Para 9 and
21)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
covered
under
the
definition
of
"Workman", therefore on the basis of
above citation, it is concluded that a junior
engineer is the workman under Sections 6
and 2 (Z) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.

14. So far as the arrears of salary for
the month of March and April, 1990 and
for the days of 01st and 02nd May, 1990 is
concerned, in this regard the petitioner had
barely pleaded that its written statement
was not accepted by the labour court. After
transfer, no salary is in arrears and this fact
has not been mentioned. This fact has also
not been mentioned that the plaintiff -
opposite party no. 2 was granted ''leave
without pay' for the aforesaid period,
though in this writ petition, the petitioner
has annexed a copy of an order dated 08th
March, 1991 as Annexure No. 4 that since
05th March, to 30th April, 1990 the
opposite party no. 2 was absent from his
service and he was treated to be absent and
for that period ''leave without pay' was
granted by the Executive Engineer. This
fact was not brought into the knowledge of
the labour court and this fact has also not
been considered by the labour court.
Further, the petitioner has filed the paper
(Annexure No. 5) to this writ petition,
which
discloses
that
an
amount
of
Rs.1,615.10/- was paid to opposite party
no. 2 for the period of March, 1990 to
April, 1990. This fact was also not brought
in the knowledge of the labour court. This
fact and evidence has also not been
considered by the labour court.

15. On the basis of above this Court,
is of the view that until the order regarding
the sanction of ''leave without pay' is
converted into earned leave or any other
leave an employee cannot get his salary for
the period for which he was granted ''leave
without pay'. The impugned order appears
to be non-speaking, sketchy and ex-parte.
The labour court has not considered the
facts that the ''workman' was granted
''leave without pay' for the period for
which he cannot get salary until it is
converted into the ''paid leave'.

16. Inspite of service upon him, the
respondent no. 2 has not filed counter
affidavit to controvert the allegations and
the questions raised from the side of the
petitioner, hence the petition is liable to be
allowed.

O R D E R.

17. This writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 03.05.2000
passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad in
Misc. Case No. 24 of 1997 - Deepak
Chandra Rai Vs. The Executive Engineer
and another is hereby quashed.

18. The labour court is directed to
permit the petitioner to file the written
statement
alongwith
the
aforesaid
documents. After affording an opportunity
of hearing and production of documents
and the evidence to the petitioner, the
learned labour court shall decide the matter
within a period of six months.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 934
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No .39791 of 2014

Rakesh Kumar Goel ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors.
4 All. Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors.
935
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Tiwari

A. Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226
- UP Land revenue Act, 1901 - Section 34
-
Mutation
proceeding
-
Nature
-
Maintainability of writ - Held, an entry in
revenue records is only for fiscal purpose
and does not confer title on a person
whose name appears in record-of-rights
and title to the property can only be
decided by a competent civil court - 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. (Para 9 and
21)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Mathura Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012 (4) AWC
3825
2. Sri Lal Bachan Vs Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow & ors.; 2002 (93)
RD 6
3. Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs St. of M. P.;
(2007) 11 SCC 736
4. Suraj Bhan & ors. Vs Financial Commissioner
& ors.; (2007) 6 SCC 186
5. Faqruddin Vs Tajuddin; (2008) 8 SCC 12
6. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs Arthur
Import and Export Company & ors.; (2019) 3
SCC 191
7. Balwant Singh Vs Daulat Singh; (1997) 7 SCC
137
8. Narasamma Vs St. of Karn.; (2009) 5 SCC 591
8. Mahesh Kumar Juneja & ors. Vs Addl.
Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division &
ors.; 2020 (3) ADJ 104
9. Harish Chandra Vs U.O.I.& ors.; 2019 (5) ADJ
212
10. U.O.I.(UOI) & ors. Vs Vasavi Coop. Housing
Society Ltd. & ors.; MANU/SC/0001/2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. R.
Singh,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Alok Tiwari,
learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition seeking to raise a
challenge to the orders dated 29.03.2014,
22.07.2013
and
25.06.2010
passed
by
respondent No.1, 2 & 3 namely Commissioner
Moradabad
Division
Moradabad,
Parganadhikari Najibabad District Bijnor and
Tehsildar,
Najibabad
District
Bijnor
respectfully. By the aforesaid order, the
application filed by the petitioner for mutation
was rejected.

3. The case set up by the petitioner was
based on the Registered Mortgage Deed dated
16.09.1973 and a non-registered Family
Settlement dated 21.09.1986. On the basis of
the aforesaid documents, the petitioner stated
that he is entitled for mutation of his name in
the Revenue Records. On the other hand, the
case set up by the respondent No.4 is on the
basis
of
Registered
Will
Deed
dated
18.01.2005 executed by Sri Ved Prakash
Goyal/husband of the respondent No.4. The
claim set up by the petitioner was rejected by
all the courts below on the ground that the
Family Settlement dated 21.09.1986 is an
unregistered documents and the same will not
prevail over the Registered Will Deed dated
18.01.2005.

4. It is argued by learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for
respondent No.4 that no writ petition lies
against summary proceedings and in the
present case mutation proceedings had been
contested by the petitioner till the stage of
revision and no writ petition lies against the
order of revisional authority and the only
relief can be claimed by filing a regular suit
for declaration of title. It is further argued
that as the mutation proceedings are
summary in nature, petitioner has remedy
of filing a declaratory suit for declaring his
right under Section 144 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2016.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and from perusal of the record, it
appears that petitioner had contested the
mutation proceedings filed under Section
34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act till the
stage of revision. It had been a constant
view of this Court as well as the Apex
Court
that
mutation
proceedings
are
summary in nature wherein the title over
the land is not decided and the proceedings
are only for fiscal purpose to enable the
State to collect revenue from the person
whose name is on record. The mutation
proceedings does not confer upon any right
or title on the person whose name is
entered in the revenue records.

6. In Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 this Court
while dealing with this aspect as regards
the proceedings under Section 35 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act held as under;

"5.
In
pith
and
substance
proceedings of mutation, correction of
revenue entries and settlement of disputes
as to entries in annual registers as
prescribed under Section 33 of the Act
initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the
Act are all summery proceedings subject to
determination of rights of the parties in
holding
by
the
competent
court
of
jurisdiction.

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.

3. 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."

7. 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 &
4 All. Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors.
937
Ors. 2002 (93) RD 6 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:-

"11. This Court has consistently
taken the view as is apparent from the
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."

8. A similar observation was made in
Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2007) 11 SCC 736,
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...''

9. The principle that an entry in
revenue records is only for fiscal purpose
and does not confer title on a person whose
name appears in record-of-rights and title
to the property can only be decided by a
competent civil court was reiterated in the
decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs.
Financial
Commissioner
and
others
(2007) 6 SCC 186 and it was stated as
follows :-

"9...It is well settled that an entry
in revenue records does not confer title on
a person whose name appears in record-ofrights. It is settled law that entries in the
revenue records or jamabandi have only
"fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land
revenue, and no ownership is conferred on
the basis of such entries. So far as title to
the property is concerned, it can only be
decided by a competent civil court..."

10. Reference may also be had to the
judgment in Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin
(2008) 8 SCC 12, 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 in this regard 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.''

11. The proposition that mutation
entries in revenue records do not create or
extinguish title over land nor such entries
have any presumptive value on title has
been restated in a recent decision in the
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs.
Arthur Import and Export Company &
Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 191 placing reliance
upon earlier decisions in Balwant Singh
Vs. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 and
Narasamma Vs. State of Karnataka (2009)
5 SCC 591. 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 has it 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)."

12. A coordinate Bench of this Court
in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and
Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial,
Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3)
ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held
as under;

"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.

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."

13. In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of
India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212 Division
Bench of this Court while dealing with an
issue in regard to the land acquisition
proceedings had the occasion to discuss the
matter relating to revenue records and held
as under;

"37. This Court may also take
into consideration that it is settled law that
the revenue records do not confer title and
even if the entries in the revenue record of
rights carry value that by itself would not
confer any title upon the person claiming
on the basis of the same.

38. The Supreme Court in Guru
Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3
held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue
records) are not proof of title, and it was
stated as follows:-

"2. ...It is settled law that entries
in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.
They are only statements for revenue
purpose. It is for the parties to establish the
relationship or title to the property unless
there is unequivocal admission..."

14. Apex Court in case of Union of
India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op.
Housing
Society
Ltd.
&
Ors.
MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with
the entries of the revenue records relying
upon the earlier judgments of the Apex
Court, held that revenue records are not the
4 All. Rakesh Kumar Goel Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors.
939
document of title and the same cannot be
basis for declaration of title. Relevant
paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;

"17.
This
Court
in
several
Judgments has held that the revenue
records
does
not
confer
title.
In
Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M.
Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612
held that "it is firmly established that
revenue records are not documents of title,
and the question of interpretation of
document not being a document of title is
not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit
Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4
SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the
entries in jamabandi are not proof of title".
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav
Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this
Court held that "the entries in the revenue
papers, by no stretch of imagination can
form the basis for declaration of title in
favour of the plaintiff."

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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."

18. 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).

19. 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).
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Thus, it had been constant view of
the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this
Court that mutation proceedings are
summary in nature and no right or title is
created. The revenue entries is only for
the collection of revenue from the person
whose name is entered in the records. The
title can only be seen in a regular suit
filed for declaration and not in a writ
petition which arises out of summary
proceedings.

23. In view of the above the orders
passed by the revenue authorities need no
interference and writ petition is dismissed,
accordingly. However, it is open to the
petitioner to file declaratory suit claiming
his right over the land in dispute.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 940
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ-C No .54850 of 2009

Viswatosh Narayan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anubhav Chandra, Sri B.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A
- Schedule 1-B, Article 35(a)(v) and
35(a)(vi) - Expiry of term of lease -
Renewal - Stamp duty has been paid as
per Article 35(a)(v) of Schedule 1-B Effect
- Effect - Lease deed provide that at the
time of renewal of lease, the parties shall
execute fresh lease, which necessarily
means fresh registration - Effect - Gopal
Swarup Chaturvedi's case relied upon -
Held, such lease deed is not covered under
Article 35(a)(vi) of the Indian Stamp Act.
(Para 6, 12 and 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2007 (102) RD 574
2. Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
others; 2018(10) ADJ 137
3. Ashish Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner
(Stamp) and Ors; (2010) 110 RD 822
4. Manish Jain Vs St. of U.P; (2011) 5 All LJ 388
5.
Smt.
Sudama Devi
Vs
St.
of
U.P.;
(Manu/UP/2818/2018)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri