Buddh Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 17.2.2009, 23.2.2010 and 14.10.2011 and the order dated 27.5.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 211/2008 u/s 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred as Act).

One Hridesh Kumar was admitted to the Gaon Sabha land in the year 1994. It is said that with the lapse of time, he was declared Bhumidhar with transferable rights in 2008 subsequent thereto petitioner has purchased the said land from the aforesaid Hridesh Kumar. However, in the meantime, in proceedings u/s 39 of the Act, the name of Hridesh Kumar was directed to be expunged as the allotment made in his favour was found to be fictitious. His recall application was dismissed in default whereupon petitioner''s application for recall was also rejected on 14.10.2011.

In sum and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries or settlement of disputes as to entries or in annual registers as prescribed u/s 33 of the Act initiated or decided u/s 34/35, 39, 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery in nature subject to determination of rights of the parties by the competent Court of jurisdiction.

Section 40A of the Act lays down that orders passed u/s 35, 39, 40 or 54 of the Act, apart from certain other orders, would not be a bar for instituting any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in the holding. It means that irrespective of the orders passed aforesaid under the provisions, parties are free to get their rights on a holding adjudicated before competent Court.

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.

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.

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

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. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with direction to the authority concern to complete the mutation proceedings, if any, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order 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.