# State of U.P. & Anr v. Board of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 182
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ- B No. 1633 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-board-of-revenue-ors-50996
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Land Law & Tenancy Law -
Orders related to tenancy rights over
disputed land under challenge - Title
Dispute - Interim Injunction - Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC (application 6-C) -
Maintainability - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - Section 33/39 , U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939
-
Section
242
-
Suits
and
applications cognizable by Revenue Courts
only - Relevant provisions concerning
eviction procedures, Government Grants
Act, 1895 - Rules related to lease
agreements - Revenue records are not
documents of title - Mutation in revenue
records neither create nor extinguishes
title, nor does it have presumptive value
on
title
-
If
the
matter
involves
complicated question of law and fact
relating to title, the Court will relegate the
parties to
a remedy
by
way
of
a
comprehensive declaration of title, instead
of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction. (Para -25,27,28)

Appellants/contesting respondents claimed title
to a disputed land based on revenue entries - as
Class 10-A (non-occupancy tenants) - but
State/Irrigation
Department
produced
documents showing that - land was granted to
the predecessors of the appellants on lease
under the Government Grants Act - whether
interim injunction can be granted in a case of
disputed title. (Para - 4, 25,26)

HELD: - Appellants/contesting respondents
never filed any suit under U.P. Tenancy Act to
crystalize their rights. Title highly disputed.
Relief sought for interim injunction rightly
rejected by trial Court. No illegality in impugned
order, hence, FAFO stands dismissed. Matter
(Petition) remitted back to Board of Revenue for
fresh decision after affording opportunity to
both parties. (Para -30)

FAFO stands dismissed.
Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,982 of 42,523. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39982 for what follows._

182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court filed along with the plaint. This is
the stand taken by the respondent-defendant in
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. As noticed above, no amount of
evidence or merits of the controversy can be
examined at the stage of decision of the
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
Hence, in our view, the impugned order of the
High Court passed in the Review Application
deserves
to
be
set
aside.
Ordered
accordingly."

12. It is well settled that the proceedings
arising out of Section 38(1) of the Revenue
Code are summary in nature and its finding
may not be final adjudication on the issue.
Still, since the suit was filed on basis of a oral
sale-deed and alleged possession thereon as
well as on plea of adverse possession,
therefore, any finding in regard to the saledeed must be part of the suit as well as the
petitioner ought to have came before any
Court with clean hands, therefore, he was
under legal obligation to disclose the earlier
proceedings, but admittedly he has not done
so, therefore, he has not come with clean
hands before the Court, which is a adverse
factor.

13. So far as other argument is
concerned, that to consider the application
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., issues are
required to prove has no merit and for that a
reference is taken from the above referred
judgments that at the stage of consideration of
application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.,
merit of the case is not required to be
considered, since it is an application for
rejection of the plaint.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Court is of considered opinion that there is no
illegality in the impugned orders dated
6.6.2022 and 27.5.2017. However, under
Order VII Rule 13 C.P.C., the petitioner has
still liberty to present a fresh plaint in respect
of the same cause of action. Therefore, while
rejecting the prayers of this writ petition, it is
observed that the petitioner can take benefit of
Order VII Rule 13 C.P.C., if so advised.
However, he has to disclose all the facts
including the earlier proceedings also.

15. In pursuance to the previous order
passed by this Court, concerned S.D.M.
and the S.H.O. were present in Court and
they have tendered unqualified apology that
they
have
acted
in
haste
without
considering that the present writ petition
was pending before this Court. However,
they assure that such acts will not be
repeated in future.

16. The District Magistrate, Prayagraj as
well as the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj
are directed to communicate their officers that
if the manner of doing a particular act is
prescribed under a provision of law, the act
must be done in that manner or not at all.

17. Present writ petition is, accordingly,
disposed off. Legal consequence shall follow.

18. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ- B No. 1633 of 2023
With
FAFO No. 793 of 2024

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
183
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ratan Deep Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Aakash Rai, Neeraj Kumar Pandey, Syed
Mohd. Fazal, Vijay Kumar Rai

(A) Civil Law - Land Law & Tenancy Law -
Orders related to tenancy rights over
disputed land under challenge - Title
Dispute - Interim Injunction - Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC (application 6-C) -
Maintainability - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - Section 33/39 , U.P. Tenancy Act,
1939
-
Section
242
-
Suits
and
applications cognizable by Revenue Courts
only - Relevant provisions concerning
eviction procedures, Government Grants
Act, 1895 - Rules related to lease
agreements - Revenue records are not
documents of title - Mutation in revenue
records neither create nor extinguishes
title, nor does it have presumptive value
on
title
-
If
the
matter
involves
complicated question of law and fact
relating to title, the Court will relegate the
parties to
a remedy
by
way
of
a
comprehensive declaration of title, instead
of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction. (Para -25,27,28)

Appellants/contesting respondents claimed title
to a disputed land based on revenue entries - as
Class 10-A (non-occupancy tenants) - but
State/Irrigation
Department
produced
documents showing that - land was granted to
the predecessors of the appellants on lease
under the Government Grants Act - whether
interim injunction can be granted in a case of
disputed title. (Para - 4, 25,26)

HELD: - Appellants/contesting respondents
never filed any suit under U.P. Tenancy Act to
crystalize their rights. Title highly disputed.
Relief sought for interim injunction rightly
rejected by trial Court. No illegality in impugned
order, hence, FAFO stands dismissed. Matter
(Petition) remitted back to Board of Revenue for
fresh decision after affording opportunity to
both parties. (Para -30)

FAFO stands dismissed.
Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lallu Yeshwant Singh (Dead) by his LRs Vs
Rao Jagdish Singh & ors., AIR 1968 SC 620

2. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Maharaja Dharmender
Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997

3. Anathula Sudhakar Vs P. Buchi Reddy (D) by
LRs. & ors., (2008) 4 SCC 594

4. Pratap Singh (D) through LRs & ors. Vs Shiv
Ram (D) through LRs., (2020) 11 SCC 242

5. Ravindra Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2022:AHC:117007

6. Muhammad Khalilur Rahman Khan Vs
Mohammad Muzammilullah Khan, AIR 1933 ALL
468

7. Durga Prasad Vs Board of Revenue,
Allahabad AIR 1970 ALL 159

8. Basdeo & ors. Vs Board of Revenue,
Allahabad, AIR 1974 ALL 337

9. Paras Nath Vs Board of Revenue, Allahabad,
AIR 1986 ALL 111

10. Kashi Math Sansthan & anr. Vs Shrimad
Sudhindra Thirta Swamy & anr., (2010) 1 SCC
689

11. Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust & anr.
Vs Ganga Bai Menariya (D) through LRs & ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012

12. St. of U.P. Vs Ram Prasad Saxena, First
Appeal No. 566 of 1996

13.
Kayalulla
Parambath
Moidu
Haji
Vs
Namboodiyil Vinodan, Civil Appeal No. 5575-76
of 2021

14. TV Ramakrishna Reddy Vs M. Mallappa &
anr., (2021) 13 SCC 135

15. P. Kishore Kumar Vs Vittal K.Patkar, 2023
SCC Online SC 1483
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard S/Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava
and R.K. Tiwari, learned A.C.S.C. along
with Sri Anshul Nigam, learned Standing
Counsel for State-petitioners and S/Sri S.G.
Hasnain and H.R. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocates assisted by S/Sri Syed. Mohd.
Fazal, Abhishek Tandon, Dhiraj Pandey,
learned advocates for respondents in writ
petition and S/Sri S.G. Hasnain and H.R.
Mishra, learned Senior Advocates assisted
by S/Sri Syed. Mohd. Fazal, Abhishek
Tandon, Dhiraj Pandey, learned advocates
for
appellants
and
S/Sri
Sudhanshu
Srivastava
and
R.K.
Tiwari,
learned
A.C.S.C. along with Sri Anshul Nigam,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
State-
respondents in First Appeal From Order.

2. Above referred two cases are arising
out of same land in dispute, therefore, with
consent of learned advocates for rival
parties, both cases are being decided by a
common judgment.

3. State of U.P. has preferred Writ
Petition No. 1633/2023 wherein an order
dated 01.05.2018 passed in Revision No.
1640/2017 by Board of Revenue, U.P.,
Lucknow
filed
by
three
appellants/contesting respondents (out of
them 2 have filed the connected FAFO No.
793/2024) is challenged. The details of land
in dispute is described in both cases i.e.
Khasra no. 385/1 and Khasra no. 319
situated in village Kaila, Pargana Loni,
Tehsil and District- Ghaziabad.

4. Appellants in FAFO (contesting
respondents in writ petition) have claimed
right over land in dispute on basis of their
alleged very long possession and have
entered into revenue records as nonoccupancy tenants in Class 10-A whereas
State has highly disputed their claim on the
ground that land in dispute was allotted to
their predecessors by way of a lease under
Government Grants Act on 01.06.1954
which
purportedly
continued
up
to
30.09.1997
and
thereafter
State
Government took a decision not to renew
any lease.

5. Proceedings in writ petition were
arisen in the year 2006 when on a
complaint, the Sub Divisional Magistrate
initiated the proceedings in Case No.
21/2005-06 under Section 33/39 of U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 (for short "Act of
1901") and vide order dated 10.03.2006,
name of appellants/contesting respondents
were striked out as recorded in Class 10-A
and it was directed to record that
"समलककयत सरकार" i.e. property of
Central Government. Relevant part thereof
is quoted below -:

"ननणटय ददनांक:- 10/3/2006

प्रस्तुत
वाद
तहसीलदार,
गाजियाबाद की आख्या ददनांक 06.03.2006
के आधार पर योजित हुआ । तहसीलदार,
गाजियाबाद द्वारा क्षेत्रीय लेखपाल एवं
भ लेख ननरीक्षक की िांि आख्या को
संस्तुनत सदहत प्रेवषत ककया है । िांि
आख्या में कहा गया है कक ग्राम कैला
परगना लोनी, तहसील व जिला गाजियाबाद
के नॉन िेड.ए. फसली 1412 महाल के
खेवट संख्या 96 सैन्रल गवटन्मेंट आदद की
खाता संख्या 209 मो० उगर पुत्र अयय ब
अली ननवासी ग्राम का नाम खसरा मम्बर
319 क्षेत्रफल 53-9-0. खसरा संख्या 385/1
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
185
रकबई 18-17-0 कुल दो नम्बरान फुल
रकबई 72-6-0 पर श्रेणी-10-क के रूप में
दिट है, िबकक उक्त भ सम पर सैन्रल
गवटन्मेंट समसलटरी ऑफ डडफेंस का कब्िा
है। मो० उमर पुत्र अयय ब अली खां का
कब्िा नहीं है। कब्िा न होने की दशा में
मौ० उमर पुत्र अयय ब अली ननवासी ग्राम
का नाम श्रेणी-10-क से ननरस्त ककये िाने
की संस्तुनत की िाती है।

ववद्वान नासमका वकट ल-रािस्व
को सुना गया एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन
ककया गया । पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध
तहसीलदार गाजियाबाद की िांि आख्या से
स्पष्ट है कक ग्राम कैला, परगना लोनी,
तहसील व जिला गाजियाबाद के नॉन
िेड.ए. फसली 1412 महाल के खेवट संख्या
96 सैन्रल गवटन्मेट आदद की खाता संख्या
209 मो० उमर पुत्र अयय ब अली ननवासी
ग्राम का नाम खसरा नम्बर 319 क्षेत्रफल
53-9-0, खसरा संख्या 385/1 रकबई 18-170 कुल दो नम्बरान कुल रकबई 72-6-0 पर
श्रेणी-10-क के रूप में दिट है, िबकक उक्त
भ सम पर सैन्रल गवटन्मेंट समसलटरी ऑफ
डडफेंस का कब्िा है। इस प्रकार प्रनतवादी
का उपरोक्त भ सम पर नाम गलत रूप से
िला आ रहा है। ए.आई.आर. 1991 मा.
उच्ितम न्यायालय पृष्ठ संख्या 909 य .पी.
ि ननयर डाक्टसट एक्शन कमेटी बनाम डा.
बी.शीतल नन्दवानी एवं अन्य में पाररत
आदेश ददनांक 31.08.90 एवं ननदेश संख्या
176 वषट 1985-86 (एल. आर.) सुल्तानपुर
रमाशंकर बनाम सरकार ननणटय ददनाक
06.09.1991 के दृष्टान्तों से स्पष्ट है कक
फिी आदेशों के द्वारा ककसी भी व्यजक्त ने
कोई लाभ प्राप्त ककया है, तो उसके द्वारा
प्राप्त ककये गये लाभ को ननरस्त करने से
प वट उस व्यजक्त को सुनवाई का अवसर
देना आवश्यक नहीं है। ि ंकक उपरोक्त भ सम
पर मौ० उमर पुत्र अय्य ब ननवासी ग्राम का
कोई कब्िा नहीं है, बजल्क सैन्रल गवटन्मेंट
समलटरी आफ डडफेंट काकब्िा है, अतः मौ०
उमर पुत्र अयय ब का नाम ननरस्त करने से
प वट उपरोक्त दृष्टान्तों से सहमत होते हुए
सम्बजन्धत पक्षकार को सुनवाई का अवसर
देना आवश्यक नहीं समझता ह ूँ। अतः
उपरोक्त आधार पर ग्राम कैला, परगना
लोनी, तहसील व जिला गाजियाबाद के नान
िेड़.ए. फसली 1412 के खेवट संख्या 96
सैन्रल गवटन्मेंट आदद की खाता संख्या 209
मो० उमर पुत्र अयय ब अली ननवासी ग्राम
का नाम खसरा नम्बर 319 क्षेत्रफल 53-90, खसरा संख्या 385/1 रकबई 18-17-0 कुल
दो नम्बरान कुल रकबाई 72-6-0 पर श्रेणी
-10-क का नाम ननरस्त कर समजल्कयत
सरकार दिट ककया िाना उचित प्रतीत होता
है।
आदेश

उपरोक्त वववेिना के आधार पर
ग्राम कैला, परगना लोनी, तहसील व जिला
गाजियाबाद के नान िेड.ए. फसली 1412
महाल के खेवट संख्या 96 सैन्रल गवटन्मेंट
आदद की खाता संख्या 209 मो० उमर पुत्र
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अयय ब अली ननवासी ग्राम का नाम खसरा
नम्बर 319 क्षेत्रफल 53-9-0, खसरा संख्या
385/1 रकबई 18-17-0 कुल दो नम्बरान
कुल रकबई 72-6-0 पर श्रेणी -10-क का
नाम ननरस्त कर समजल्कयत सरकार दिट
हो। आदेश की प्रनतसलवप तहसीलदार,
गाजियाबाद को इस आशय से भेिी िाये
कक वह उपरोक्त आदेशों का रािस्व
असभलेखों
में
अमलदरामद
करते
हुए
अनुपालन आख्या से एक सप्ताह के अन्दर
अवगत कराया िाना सुननजश्ित करें।
पत्रावली वाद आवश्यक कायटवाही दाखखल
दफ्तर हो। "

6.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
Department
of
Headworks
(Irrigation
Department) filed an application in above
referred case on 24.08.2007 that order
dated 10.03.2006 be set aside and the case
be restored for consideration of their stand
and instead of land being of Central
Government, name of State/Department be
entered
since
appellants/contesting
respondents have objected the construction
work commenced by said Department.

7. Meanwhile, father of one of
appellants/contesting
respondents
challenged the order dated 10.03.2006
passed by the S.D.M. on 12.08.2010 by
way of a revision before Additional
Commissioner, Meerut which was allowed
vide order dated 12.08.2010 and matter was
remitted back to S.D.M., Ghaziabad to
decide it fresh. In pursuance of above
order, application so filed by Irrigation
Department was also heard. The S.D.M.,
Ghaziabad vide order dated 22.08.2016 not
only rejected the impleadment application
of Smt. Qamar Sultana but disposed of the
case whereby land in dispute was again
directed to be recorderd as "समलककयत
सरकार". So far as application of Irrigation
Department was concerned, it was rejected
since no document in support of their claim
was filed. Relevant part thereof is quoted
below :-

"पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अचधशासी
असभयन्ता हैड वक्सट आगरा नहर औखला
नई ददल्ली की ओर से भी पुनः स्थापना
प्राथटना पत्र ददनांक 10.03.2006 के ववरूद्ध
ददनांक 24.03.2006 को प्रेवषत ककया गया
था। जिसमें कथन ककया गया था। कक
ववभाग नहर नदी व ससिाई सम्बजन्धत
खण्ड की भ सम का मासलक है उसकी देख
रेख व नहर आदद की मेन्टीनेंस रख रखाव
का अचधकार है। खेवट 96 िो सेन्रल
गवटमेन्ट के नाम दिट उसके खाता संख्या
209 के खसरा नम्बर 385/1 िो दहण्डन
नदी का नम्बर तथा खसरा 319 िो डडण्डन
नदी वैराि से लगा है जिसमें ववभाग के
दहण्डन नदी बैराि की देख रेख व मरम्मत
का सामान पत्थर आदद व समट्टी उठाने के
सलए ववभाग के नाम सरकार द्वारा ससंिाई
ववभाग के सलए गिट नम्बर 11971 ददनांक
19 मई 1873 द्वारा छोड़ा गया था। जिसके
कारण ववभाग खसरा नम्बर 385/1 व 319
का वषट 1873 से मासलक काबबि िला आ
रहा है। ववभाग सन् 1999 तक समय समय
पर ववसभन्न व्यजक्तयों को खेती के सलए
प ट्टे के रुप में देता िला आ रहा था। यह
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
187
भी कथन ककया गया कक खेवट संख्या 96
में प्राथी ववभाग की भ सम पर सेन्रल
गवटमेन्ट की भ सम आख्या में दसशटत की
गयी है िबकक खेवट में वववाददत भ सम के
मासलक काबबि ससिाई है तथा मौ० उमर
पुत्र अय ब का नाम फिी रुप से दिट िला
आ रहा है। प्राथटना पत्र के अन्त में
वववाददत खसरा नम्बर 385/1 नदी के खाते
व खसरा नम्बर 319 मकब िा है आगरा
नहर ओखला नई ददल्ली के नाम दिट ककये
िाने की यािना की गयी। पट्टे पर देने
हेतु एवं अन्य कागिात छाया प्रनतयां
संलग्न की गयी है। वखणटत भ सम को
सरकार द्वारा ससिांई ववभाग सलए गिट
नम्बर 11971 ददनांक 19 मई 1873 द्वारा
छोडी गयी भ सम है, जिस पर मौ० उमर पुत्र
अय्य ब का नाम फिी रुप से दिट िला आ
रहा है। ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर
दाखखल नही है। जिससे रािस्व असभलेखो
में ससिाई ववभाग का नाम दिट हुआ हो।
धारा 33/39 भ -रािस्व अचधननयम के
अन्तगटत ककसी गिट के आधार पर
अचधकार प्रदान नही ककये िा सकते हैं। यह
अनुतोष ससिाई ववभाग सक्षम धारा में वाद
योजित कर अपना नाम दिट करा सकता
है। इस प्रकार वाद ननरस्त ककया िना
असभष्ट एवं न्यायोचित है।
आदेश

उपरोक्त वववेिना का आधार पर
श्रीमती कमर सुलताना पत्नी इकबाल
अहमद ननवासी मकान नम्बर 526 मोहल्ला
ककशनगंि कस्बा वपलखुवा तहसील व
जिला हापुड द्वारा प्राथटना पत्र ददनांक
02.12.2015 का प्राथटना पत्र बलहीन होने के
कारण ननरस्त ककया िाता है। भ -रािस्व
अचधननयम की धारा 33/39 अन्तगटत ककसी
गिट या कब्िे के आधार पर ससंिाई
ववभाई को भी कोई अचधकार प्रदान नहीं
ककया िा सकता है। ग्राम कैला परगना
लौनी की नान िेड.ए. फसली 1412 महाल
के खेवट संख्या 96 सैन्रल गवटमेन्ट आदद
के खाता संख्या 209 नम्बर 319 खसरा
नम्बर 319 रकबई 53-9-0 खसरा नम्बर
385/1 रकबई 18-17-0 कुल नम्बरान दो
कुल रकबा 72-6-0 पर श्रेणी 10क पर से
मौ० उमर पुत्र अय्य ब अली ननवासी ग्राम
का नाम खाररि ककया िाय। वाद उपरोक्त
में वखणटत भ सम पर समजल्कयत सरकार का
नाम दिट ककया िाय। वाद उपरोक्त में
न्यायालय
द्वारा
पाररत
आदेश
की
असभलेखो में प्रववष्ट हेतु परवाना दो प्रनतयों
में तहसीलदार गाजियाबाद को भेिा िाय।
द्ववतीय प्रनत पर इस आशय की दटप्पणी
सदहत कक अमलदरामद कर ददया गया है,
एक सप्ताह के अन्दर न्यायालय हािा में
सभिवाना सुननजश्ित ककया िाय। तदोपरांत
इस न्यायालय की पत्रावली बाद आवश्यक
प नतट असभलेखागार में संचित हो।"

8. Aforesaid order was thereafter
challenged
at
the
behest
of
appellants/contesting respondents by way
of filing a revision petition before Board of
Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. Said revision
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition was allowed vide order dated
01.05.2018
whereby
impugned
order
therein dated 22.08.2016 was set aside and
it
was
directed
that
name
of
appellants/contesting respondents in Class
10-A (non occupancy tenants) could not be
expunged in a summary proceedings
arising out of Section 33/39 of Act of 1901
and it was also observed that since land in
dispute falls within a Non-Z.A. area,
therefore, the occupants could be evicted
only under relevant provisions of U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 (for short "Act of
1939"). Relevant part thereof is quoted
below :-

"10. असभलेखों से िैसा कक स्पष्ट
है, खतौनी फसली 1363 से 1412 फसली
तक में लगातार वववाददत आरािी पर मो.
उमर पुत्र अय्य ब अली का नाम "श्रेणी 10क
गैर दाखखलकार" काश्तकार के रूप में दिट
िली आ रही है, िहां तक रक्षा मंत्रालय
भारत सरकार का प्रश्न है, पत्रावली में
डडफेंस स्टेटस आफीसर, मेरठ सककटल, मेरठ
कैण्ट का वप्रंससपल डायरेक्टर, डडफेन्स
स्टेटस, गवटन्मेंट आफ इजण्डया, समननस्री
आफ डडफेन्स, सेन्रल कमाण्ड, 17 कररअप्पा
रोड, लखनऊ कैण्ट को सम्बोचधत एवं
अचधशासी असभयन्ता हेड वक्सट खण्ड, आगर
नहर औखला, नई ददल्ली को पृष्ठांककत पत्र
संख्या 1427/एम, ददनांक 19.11.2014 में यह
उल्लेख ककया गया है कक वववाददत आरािी
से रक्षा मंत्रालय भारत सरकार का कोई
सम्बन्ध नहीं है, अतः उनके स्तर से इस
वाद में कोई कायटवाही की िानी अपेक्षक्षत
नहीं है। उक्त के पररप्रेक्ष्य में वववाददत
आरािी पर से सेन्रल गवनटमेन्ट का नाम
अंककत ककये िाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं
प्रतीत होता है। िहां तक ससिाई ववभाग
अचधशासी असभयन्ता हेड वक्सट खण्ड, आगर
नहर औखला, नई ददल्ली के पुनटस्थापन
प्राथटना पत्र का सम्बन्ध है, ससंिाई ववभाग
का नाम ककसी भी रािस्व असभलेखों में
अभी तक दिट नहीं है, हालांकक उनके द्वारा
वववाददत आरािी के वषट 1954 से लेकर
1999 तक मो. उमर पुत्र अय्य ब अली के
नाम समय समय पर ककये गये पट्टे की
फोटो प्रनतयां दाखखल की गयी है। ववद्वान
उपजिलाचधकारी गाजियाबाद द्वारा ससंिाई
ववभाग के इस दावे को इस आधार पर नहीं
स्वीकार ककया गया कक उनके द्वारा अपना
नाम वववाददत आरािी पर दिट कराने की
कोई कायटवाही नहीं की गयी है। ससंिाई
ववभाग द्वारा आदेश ददनांक 22.08.2016 के
ववरूद्ध भी कोई ननगरानी ककसी न्यायालय
में दायर नहीं की गयी।

11.
प्रनतपक्षी
मो.
उमर
पुत्र
अयय ब अली का मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र परीक्षण
न्यायालय की पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध है और
मृतक मो. उमर के वाररसान की ओर से
प्रनतस्थापन प्राथटना पत्र ददनांक 12.09.2011,
मय शपथ पत्र एवं धारा 5 समयाद
अचधननयम के अंतगटत ववलम्ब मषटण के
प्राथटना पत्र सदहत उपलब्ध है, कफर भी
ववद्वान उपजिलाचधकारी द्वारा प्रनतपक्षी
मो. उमर (मृतक) के वाररसान को उसके
स्थान पर प्रनतस्थावपत नहीं ककया गया
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
189
और मृतक के ववरूद्ध वववाददत आदेश
एकपक्षीय रूप से पाररत करते हुए मृतक
मो. उमर पुत्र अयय ब अली का नाम
वववाददत आरािी से काट ददया गया। स्पष्ट
है कक ववद्वान उपजिलाचधकारी द्वारा
ननगरानी संख्या 84/2007-08 में पाररत
अपर आयुक्त मेरठ मण्डल, मेरठ के आदेश
ददनांक 12.08.2010 में ददये गये ननदेश का
पालन भी नहीं ककया गया है। ननगरानीकताट
के ववद्वान अचधवक्ता द्वारा 2006(24)
एलसीडी 110 अपील संख्या 4802-03 वषट
2005 " ककशुन उफट रामककशुन (मृतक)
द्वारा कान नी वाररसान बनाम बबहारी
(मृतक) द्वारा कान नी वाररसान" में पाररत
माननीय सवोच्ि न्यायालय के आदेश
ददनांक 05.08.2005 को संदसभटत ककया गया
जिसमें माननीय सवोच्ि न्यायालय द्वारा
ननम्न ववचध व्यवस्था प्रनतपाददत की गयी
हैः-

" As rightly poined out by learned
counsel for the appellants and fairly agreed
to by learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, the decree passed by the High
Court in favour of a party who was dead
and against a party who was dead, is
obviously a nullity. It is conceded that the
legal representatives of neither of the
parties were brought on record in the
second appeal and the second appeal stood
abated. On this ground this appeal is liable
to be allowed and the decision of the High
Court set aside"

12. इसके अलावा रािस्व पररषद
की वृहद पीठ द्वारा ननगरानी संख्या
2126/2016/मुरादाबाद "पंकि सरीन बनाम
उपजिलाचधकारी बबलारी आदद" में पाररत
आदेश ददनांक 29.01.2018 में भी यह
प्रनतपाददत ककया गया कक बबना सुनवाई का
अवसर ददये रािस्व असभलेखों में दिट
ककसी व्यजक्त का नाम धारा 33/39 उ.प्र.भ -
रािस्व अचधननयम, 1901 के अंतगटत नहीं
काटा िा सकता और न ही ककसी मृत
व्यजक्त के ववरूद्ध कोई आदेश पाररत
ककया िा सकता है।

13. ननगरानीकताटगण के पनत/वपता
मो. उमर का नाम वषट 1954 से अब तक
लगातार वववाददत आरािी पर " श्रेणी-10क
गैर - दाखखलकार" के रूप में दिट िला आ
रहा है, तो इस इन्राि को धारा 33/39
उ.प्र.भ रािस्व अचधननयम, 1901 की सरसरी
कायटवाही मे नहीं काटा िा सकता है। नान
िेे़ड.ए. क्षेत्र में ककसी भ सम पर दिट ककसी
व्यजक्त को 'य .पी.टेनेन्सी एक्ट, 1939' के
सुसंगत प्राववधानों के अंतगटत ही बेदखल
ककया िा सकता है।

14. अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यात्मक एवं
ववचधक वववेिना के आलोक में ववद्वान
उपजिलाचधकारी द्वारा पाररत आदेश ददनांक
22.08.2016 ववचधक दृजष्ट से त्रुदटप णट होने
के कारण ननरस्त ककये िाने योग्य है, जिसे
ननरस्त ककया िाता है तथा ननगरानी
स्वीकार की िाती है। आदेश की प्रनत
सदहत अवर न्यायालय के असभलेख वापस
ककये
िाये।
बाद
आवश्यक
कायटवाही
पत्रावली दाखखल दफ्तर हो।
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15.
आदेश
आि
ददनांक
01.05.2018
को
खुले
न्यायालय
में
उदघोवषत ककया गया।"

9. Aforesaid order has been challenged
by the State of U.P. along with Irrigation
Department at belated stage i.e. after about
5 years on 21.04.2023.

10.
In
the
interregnum
period,
appeallants have filed a suit in the year
2023 for permanent injunction claiming
that they are "संक्रमणीय भ समधर" on land
in dispute and since defendants i.e.
employees of Irrigation Department are
trying to interfere with their possession on
05.12.2023, therefore, a cause of action
arose for filing the suit.

11.
In
above
proceedings,
an
application for interim injunction under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed.
Said application (application 6-C) was
considered, however, it was dismissed vide
order dated 14.03.2024 by Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Ghaziabad that neither
prima facie case was made out nor there
was a balance of convenience in favour of
plaintiffs/appellants as well as they have
failed to show any irreparable loss. A
finding
was
also
returned
that
appellants/contesting respondents have no
right on land since it was granted on a lease
though many years ago, however, after
30.09.1997, it was not extended. Relevant
part of order is quoted below :-

"1- प्रथम दृष्टया केस-

वादीगण द्वारा मुख्य रूप से
असभकथन ककया गया है कक आरािी गाटा
सख्या 319 व 385 के वादीगण संक्रमणीय
भ समधर मासलक काबबि हैं। वववाददत भ सम
वादीगण पर वादीगण के वपता का नाम
रािस्व ररकाडट में दिट िला आ रहा है।
वादीगण के वपता का देहान्त हो िाने के
उपरान्त वववाददत सम्पवि प क 11 के
आधार पर ववरासत के आधार पर वादीगण
व वादीगण की माता श्रीमती हमीदा बेगम
का नाम रािस्व ररकाडट में दिट हो गया है।
रािस्व बोडट के आदेश ददनांक 01.05.2018
में भी वादीगण का नाम रािस्व ररकाडट में
माना गया है। वववाददत भ सम के असल
स्वामी वादीगण हैं। वादी द्वारा प्रस्तुत
आदेश रािस्व बोडट ददनांक 01.05.2018 के
अवलोकन से ववददत होता हैकक रािस्व बोडट
ने यह आदेश ककया है कक बबना सुनवाई
का अवसर ददये रािस्व असभलेखों से ककसी
का नाम धारा 33/39 रािस्व अचधननयम
काटा नहीं िा सकता। रािस्व बोडट द्वारा
ददनांक 22.08.2016 के उपजिलाचधकारी के
आदेश को ननरस्त ककया गया। प्रनतवादी
द्वारा मुख्य रूप से यह असभकथन ककया
गया कक उपरोक्त भ सम ससंिाई ववभाग को
दहण्डन कटा बीयर / नहर पररयोिना के
ननमाटण हेतु गिट नोदटकफकेशन संख्या
11971 ददनांक 19.05.1873 के द्वारा प्राप्त
हुई थी। यह भ सम असभलेखों में नान िेड-ए
लैंड अंककत है। प्रश्नगत भ सम राज्य सरकार
ससिाई ववभाग की सम्पवि है। ससंिाई
ववभाग द्वारा वादी के वपता मौ० उमर को
ददनांक 01.06.1954 से 01. 10.1982 तक
गाटा संख्या 319 रकबा 53 बीघा 9 ववस्वा
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
191
का प ट्टा 5 वषट के सलए ददया गया, िो
बाद में नवीनीकरण हेतु रहा। राज्य सरकार
के शासनादेश ददनांक 01.10.1982 के द्वारा
5 एकड़ से अचधक भ सम ककसी एक व्यजक्त
के नाम प ट्टे पर नहीं दी िा सकती है,
जिसके क्रम में मौ० उमर को 59 बीघा 9
ववस्वा में से मात्र 8 बीघा का पट्टा ददया
गया तथा अवशेष भ सम 45 बीघा 9 ववस्वा
को वापस ले सलया गया। जिसके समपणट
हेतु मौ० उमर द्वारा ददनांक 01.10.1982
को प्राथटनापत्र ददया गया। उक्त कथनों के
आधार पर वादी ने दावा ककया है। रािस्व
बोडट के उपरोक्त आदेश के ववरूद्ध
माननीय उच्ि न्यायालय में ररट योजित
है। वादी को गुिर बसर करने के उद्देश्य
से
पट्टा
ददया
गया
था।
ददनांक
30.09.1997 के बाद पट्टा ववस्ताररत नहीं
ककया गया। वादी का कोई स्वासमत्व नहीं
है। वववाददत रािकीय भ सम 53 बीघा 9
ववस्वा पर अधीक्षण असभयन्ता ड्रेनेि
मण्डल, गाजियाबाद के कायाटलय एवं मण्डल
कायाटलय के स्टाफ आवासों का ननमाटण
होना प्रस्ताववत है। जिसका मानचित्र
ववभागीय उच्िाचधकाररयों द्वारा स्वीकृत
कर ननमाटण हेतु वविीय स्वीकृनत िारी कर
दी गयी है। ननमाटण कायट प्रारम्भ हो गया
है। प्रनतवादीगण द्वारा अपने असभकथनों के
समथटन में प्रपत्र प्रस्तुत ककये गये हैं।
जिसके अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कक
उक्त भ सम मौ० उमर को पट्टे पर दी गयी
थी, जिसे ददनांक 01.10.1982 को शासनादेश
के अनुक्रम में 45 बीघा 9 ववस्वा भ सम का
समपटण मौ० उमर द्वारा ककया गया, शेष
भ सम का पट्टा नवीनीकरण अजन्तम रूप से
ददनांक 01.10.1992 से 30.09.1997 तक
स्वीकृत हुआ। इसके उपरान्त ददनांक
22.09.1999 के कायाटलय ज्ञाप / शासनादेश
के अनुसार ससंिाई ववभाग की भ सम को
पट्टे पर ददये िाने के समस्त आदेश
तत्काल प्रभाव से स्थचगत कर ददये गये।

7- उल्लेखनीय है कक वादी द्वारा
स्वयं को वववाददत भ सम का संक्रमणीय
भ समधर मासलक काबबि बताया गया है,
िबकक पत्रावली पर दाखखल प्रनतवादी के
प्रपत्रों से स्पष्ट है कक उक्त वववाददत भ सम
प्रनतवादी ससंिाई ववभाग द्वारा वादी के
वपता को पट्टे पर दी गयी थी। रािस्व
बोडट के आदेश से भी स्पष्ट है कक उक्त
भ सम पर वादी के वपता का नाम श्रेणी 10क
दाखखलकार के रूप में है। अतः यह कहना
कक वादीगण वववाददत भ सम के संक्रमणीय
भ समधर हैं प्रथम दृष्टया असत्य प्रकट हो
रहा है। यह भी उपरोक्त प्रपत्रों से स्पष्ट है
कक वादी के पक्ष में ककया गया पट्टा
ददनांक 30.09.1997 से ववस्ताररत नहीं है
एवं वववाददत भ सम पर ससंिाई ववभाग
द्वारा रािकीय आवास के ननमाटण हेतु
वविीय स्वीकृनत का कायट प्रारम्भ ककया
गया है। अतः प्रथम दृष्टया प्रकरण
वादीगण के पक्ष में बनना नहीं पाया िाता
है। ऐसी जस्थनत में सुववधा का सन्तुल भी
वादी के पक्ष में नहीं है। ि ंकक उपरोक्त
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
भ सम वादी के नाम संक्रमणीय भ समधर नहीं
है, बजल्क वादी को िो भी अचधकार प्रदान
ककया गया था वह ससंिाई ववभाग द्वारा
प ट्टे के आधार पर ददया गया था। अतः
ऐसी जस्थनत में अप णटनीय क्षनत की भी
संभावना नहीं है। अतः प्राथटनापत्र 6ग
ननरस्त ककये िाने योग्य है।
आदेश

वादीगण
का
प्राथटनापत्र
6ग
ननरस्त ककया िाता है। तद्नुसार प्रनतवादी
की आपवि ननस्ताररत की िाती है। पत्रावली
वाद बबन्दु ददनांक 27.03.2024 को पेश हो।"

12. Aforesaid order is impugned by
appellants/contesting respondents in FAFO.

13.
Learned
Senior
Advocates
appearing
for
appellants/contesting
respondents have submitted that their
predecessors in interest were occupant of
land in dispute which remains continued
and presently, they are in the possession of
land in dispute. A long entry is being
recorded in revenue records being Class
10-A (non occupancy tenants) which has
not
been
disturbed.
An
attempt
of
State/Irrigation Department was failed
since revision petition filed by them in
proceedings U/s 33/39 of Act of 1901 was
rejected that in said proceedings long
revenue entry could not be disturbed and
State remained silent for about 5 years and
when
appellants/contesting
respondents
filed the suit for permanent injunction, they
rushed to this Court by way of filing
aforesaid writ petition.

14. Learned Senior Advocates have
further submitted that their possession may
be protected and not only they have prima
facie cause but balance of convenience is
also in their favour and in case temporary
injunction is not granted, it will result in
irreparable loss.

15. Both Senior Advocates have also
submitted that claim of State/Irrigation
Department on basis of patta under
Government Grants Act has no legal value
since they have never tried to correct the
entries of its basis for many decades as well
as that said document is still not proved in
any Civil Court.

16. In support of their argument, they
have placed reliance upon judgments of
Lallu Yeshwant Singh (Dead) by his LRs
vs. Rao Jagdish Singh and others, AIR
1968 SC 620, State of U.P. and others vs.
Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh,
AIR 1989 SC 997, Anathula Sudhakar
vs. P. Buchi Reddy (D) by LRs. and
others, (2008) 4 SCC 594, Pratap Singh
(D) through LRs and others vs. Shiv
Ram (D) through LRs., (2020) 11 SCC
242 and Ravindra Singh and others vs.
State
of
U.P.
and
others,
2022:AHC:117007.

17. Learned Senior Advocates have
also submitted that order passed in revision
by Board of Revenue in the year 2018 is
being challenged after 5 years, therefore,
this writ petition may be dismissed on
latches as well as that a writ petition
against
mutation
proceedings
is
maintainable
only
in
extraordinary
circumstances which does not exist in
present case.

18.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing for writ petitioners/defendants in
FAFO has submitted that land in dispute is
a Non-Z.A. land and by referring a
photocopy of a lease purportedly issued
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
193
under
Government
Grants
Act
to
predecessors
of
appellants/contesting
respondents that it was submitted that it
was a lease by Government of India and
only on basis of entry under Class 10-A
(non occupancy tenants), predecessors as
well as appellants would not become owner
of land.

19. Learned counsel has referred that
documents annexed along with writ petition
and counter affidavit that land belongs to
State of UP which is now being utilized for a
construction of a wall around a barrage.

20. Learned counsel has also submitted
that if a title is highly disputed, temporary or
permanent injunction cannot be granted as
well as that proceedings U/s 33/39 of Act of
1901 are summary in nature, therefore, it
cannot be a basis of title in favour of
appellants.

21.
Learned
counsel
has
further
submitted that there is a bar under Section
242 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 that no suit
can be entertained by a Civil Court for any
question relating to tenancy. He refers
Section 31 of it which defines non occupancy
tenants that they are other than permanent
tenure-holders and since lease was not
extended,
therefore,
appellants/contesting
respondents have no claim on land in dispute.

22. Learned counsel has also submitted
that findings returned by Board of Revenue in
revision
petition
were
essentially
that
appellants/contesting respondents were not
heard, however, instead of remanding the
matter to Court concerned, has decided the
same, which was an erroneous approach.

23. Learned counsel have placed
reliance upon judgments of Muhammad
Khalilur Rahman Khan vs. Mohammad
Muzammilullah Khan, AIR 1933 ALL
468, Durga Prasad vs. Board of Revenue,
Allahabad AIR 1970 ALL 159, Basdeo
and others vs. Board of Revenue,
Allahabad, AIR 1974 ALL 337, Paras
Nath vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad,
AIR 1986 ALL 111, Kashi Math
Sansthan and another vs. Shrimad
Sudhindra Thirta Swamy and another,
(2010) 1 SCC 689, Tehsildar, Urban
Improvement Trust and another vs.
Ganga Bai Menariya (D) through LRs
and others, Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012,
decided on 20.02.2024, State of U.P. vs.
Ram Prasad Saxena, First Appeal No.
566 of 1996, decided on 14.08.2012 and
Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji vs.
Namboodiyil Vinodan, Civil Appeal No.
5575-76 of 2021, decided on 07.09.2021.

24. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.

25. It is clear from above referred rival
submissions
that
title
of
appellants/contesting respondents on land
in dispute is still highly disputed. Except
the revenue entries as Class 10-A (non
occupancy tenants), appellants have not
shown the source of their occupancy. They
have not approached concerned Court
under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to crystalize
their rights. It is also well settled that in
proceedings arising out of Section 33/39 of
Act of 1901, issue of title cannot be
decided since they are summary in nature
for a purpose of collection of taxes.

26. State/Irrigation Department have
placed reliance on photocopies of patta
issued
to
predecessors
of
appellants/contesting
respondents
under
Government Grants Act. At this stage, said
document cannot be rejected only on
ground that it being a photocopy since
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Indian Evidence Act, a document
which is more than 30 years old and is
being produced from custody which the
Court in a particular case considers proper,
it may be presumed to be genuine if not
proved otherwise. At this stage, it cannot be
doubted that said document was not
produced from a proper custody.

27. In aforesaid circumstances, a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in TV
Ramakrishna Reddy vs. M. Mallappa
and another, (2021) 13 SCC 135 wherein
it was reiterated that where the plaintiffs'
title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit
for injunction could be decided with
reference
to
findigns
of
possession.
However,
if
the
matter
involves
complicated question of law and fact
relating to title, the Court will relegate the
parties to a remedy by way of a
comprehensive declaration of title, instead
of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction. For reference, relevant paras
thereof are quoted below :-

"13. The short question that falls
for consideration before us is : Whether the
learned Single Judge of the High Court was
right in holding that the suit simpliciter for
permanent injunction without claiming
declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff,
was not maintainable?

14. The issue is no more res
integra. The position has been crystallised
by this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
Buchi Reddy [Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594] in para
21, which read thus : (SCC pp. 607-608)

"21. To summarise, the position
in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction
relating to immovable property, is as under:

(a) Where a cloud is raised over
the plaintiff's title and he does not have
possession, a suit for declaration and
possession, with or without a consequential
injunction, is the remedy. Where the
plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a
cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to
sue for possession with a consequential
injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with the plaintiff's lawful
possession or threat of dispossession, it is
sufficient
to
sue
for
an
injunction
simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction
simpliciter
is
concerned
only
with
possession, normally the issue of title will
not be directly and substantially in issue.
The prayer for injunction will be decided
with reference to the finding on possession.
But in cases where de jure possession has
to be established on the basis of title to the
property, as in the case of vacant sites, the
issue of title may directly and substantially
arise for consideration, as without a finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the
issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot
be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless
there
are
necessary
pleadings
and
appropriate issue regarding title (either
specific,
or
implied
as
noticed
in
Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v.
Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where
the averments regarding title are absent in a
plaint and where there is no issue relating
to title, the court will not investigate or
examine or render a finding on a question
of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where
there are necessary pleadings and issue, if
the matter involves complicated questions
of fact and law relating to title, the court
will relegate the parties to the remedy by
way of comprehensive suit for declaration
of title, instead of deciding the issue in a
suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary
pleadings regarding title, and appropriate
issue relating to title on which parties lead
11 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.
195
evidence, if the matter involved is simple
and straightforward, the court may decide
upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit
for injunction. But such cases, are the
exception to the normal rule that question
of title will not be decided in suits for
injunction. But persons having clear title
and possession suing for injunction, should
not be driven to the costlier and more
cumbersome
remedy
of
a
suit
for
declaration, merely because some meddler
vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or
tries to encroach upon his property. The
court should use its discretion carefully to
identify cases where it will enquire into
title and cases where it will refer to the
plaintiff
to
a
more
comprehensive
declaratory suit, depending upon the facts
of the case."

15. It could thus be seen that this
Court in unequivocal terms has held that
where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or
under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be
decided with reference to the finding on
possession. It has been clearly held that if
the matter involves complicated questions
of fact and law relating to title, the court
will relegate the parties to the remedy by
way of comprehensive suit for declaration
of title, instead of deciding the issue in a
suit for mere injunction.

16. No doubt, this Court has held
that where there are necessary pleadings
regarding
title
and
appropriate
issue
relating to title on which parties lead
evidence, if the matter involved is simple
and straightforward, the court may decide
upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit
for injunction. However, it has been held
that such cases are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not be
decided in suits for injunction."

28. In above background, another
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
case of P. Kishore Kumar vs. Vittal K.
Patkar, 2023 SCC Online SC 1483 would
also be relevant that revenue records are
not documents of title and that the mutation
in revenue records neither create nor
extinguishes title, nor does it have
presumptive value on title. For reference,
relevant paras thereof are quoted below :-

"12. It is trite law that revenue
records are not documents of title.

13. This Court in Sawarni v.
Inder Kaur2 held that mutation in revenue
records neither creates nor extinguishes
title, nor does it have any presumptive
value on title. All it does is entitle the
person in whose favour mutation is done to
pay the land revenue in question.

14. This was further affirmed in
Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (Dead) by
LRs3 wherein this Court held that mere
mutation of records would not divest the
owners of a land of their right, title and
interest in the land.

15. In Jitendra Singh v. State of
Madhya
Pradesh4,
this
Court
after
considering
a
catena
of
judgments,
reiterated the principle of law as follows:

"6. ***mutation entry does not
confer any right, title or interest in favour
of the person and the mutation entry in the
revenue record is only for the fiscal
purpose."

16. We may also profitably refer
to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram
Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil
(Dead) by LRs., (1977) 2 SCC 49 wherein
it was held that there exists no universal
principle that whatever will appear in the
record of rights will be presumed to be
correct, when there exists evidence to the
contrary."

29. On basis of above referred facts
and law, at this stage, it is very clear that
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of appellants/contesting respondents
on land in dispute i.e. their alleged title is
highly disputed. Their claim is essentially
based on a revenue entry which is under
Class 10-A (non occupancy tenants) in a
Non Z.A. land whereas from the documents
on record which are more than 30 years
old, produced from a proper custody has a
presumptive value that land in dispute was
granted to predecessors of appellants on
lease under Government Grants Act which
was not extended after 1997.

30.