CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Leela Arya And Others vs Smt. Bimla Devi

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 31 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 UK CK 0115

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Land Revenue Act, 1901 — Section 34, 35 · Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms act, 1950 — Section 171, 172
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3196 Of 2018 (M/S)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 378 words

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

1.

Petitioners filed an application for mutation under Section 34, 35 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the basis of an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by Hansi Devi (mother of petitioner no.1 as well as respondent). Respondent disputed validity of the said Will, however, the learned Tehsildar allowed the mutation application.

2.

Respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed by learned Collector, Nainital. However, revision petition filed by the respondent was partly allowed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division vide order dated 03.02.2016 and the matter was remitted back to Tehsildar for reconsideration of the mutation application. Petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Division in Revision No.58 of 2015-2016, filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2018 and the matter was remitted back to the Tehsildar to decide the mutation application in the light of Sections 171 and 172 of Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act. However, it was observed by the Board of Revenue that petitioners shall be at liberty to file regular suit for declaration of their title on the basis of the Will. The order passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in this writ petition.

3.

Mutation proceedings under Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary in nature and it is settled position in law that disputed question of title cannot be decided in such proceedings. Mutation of name in Revenue Record does not confer any title and the same is done only for fiscal purpose as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of T. Ravi Vs. B.Chinna Narasimha & Others reported in (2017) 7 SCC 342.

4.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

5.

In the event of any of the parties filing regular suit for declaration of title, the same shall be decided by the court concerned, independently, without being influenced by the observations made by Board of Revenue in its judgment dated 30.06.2018.

6.

For a period of three months from today, no third party interest in respect of land in question shall be created by any of the parties.