# Vinod Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 255
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-01-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76692 of 2011
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-rajbhar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42112
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
Petition-arises
out
from
mutation
proceeding-held-not maintainable as no
right
on
title
are
decided-petition
dismissed with liberty to get the title
decided in regular Suit.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above, as no substantive
rights of the parties have been decided or
are likely to be decided in the pending
proceedings, no case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is made out.

## Text

1 All] Vinod Kumar Rajbhar V. State of U.P. and others

255
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76692 of 2011

Vinod Kumar Rajbhar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Subhash Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahesh Narain Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ
Petition-arises
out
from
mutation
proceeding-held-not maintainable as no
right
on
title
are
decided-petition
dismissed with liberty to get the title
decided in regular Suit.

Held: Para 8

In view of the above, as no substantive
rights of the parties have been decided or
are likely to be decided in the pending
proceedings, no case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is made out.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioner.

2. It appears that on an application
filed under Section 33/39 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, an order was passed
by the Up Ziladhikari on 25.2.1997
directing for deleting the name of Bal
Roop son of Dharm Dev against Khata
No.151 plot No.1 area 3-3-6 and for
recording the names of Shiv Lochan and
Shiv Govind both sons of Sarjoo.

3. Petitioner on 17.1.2008 applied
for recall of the above order on the
ground that he has acquired rights in the
land in dispute on the basis of a
registered Will alleged to have been
executed and left behind by Bal Roop.
The said application has been rejected
and the petitioner's revision has also been
dismissed.

4. In sum and substance, the writ
petition
arises
out
of
mutation
proceedings/correction
of
revenue
entries.

5. 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.

6. 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
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

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 present case does not fall in
any of the above exceptions.

8. In view of the above, as no
substantive rights of the parties have
been decided or are likely to be decided
in the pending proceedings, no case for
exercise
of
extra-ordinary
writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out.

9. Accordingly, I dispose of the
writ petition with liberty to the parties to
get their rights over the land in dispute, if
necessary, adjudicated or declared by the
competent court of jurisdiction. The
order passed in the mutation proceedings
would abide by the decision of the
competent court, if any, and the said
court would not, in any manner, be
influenced by any finding or observation
made in the mutation orders or during
mutation proceedings.
---------