Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24674 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anek Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dur Vijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The proceedings under challenge in this writ petition are arising out of the proceedings undertaken against the petitioners under Section 198(4) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for eviction from property of Gaon Sabha, which are summary in nature and, therefore, no writ petition is maintainable against such orders.
2. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered this issue in Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others, 2020(1) AWC 695All and after relying on various judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court, has held as under:
"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 an orders d 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."
3. Recently another Coordinate Bench of this Court has also considered this issue in Writ -C No. 5868 of 2020 (Radha Raman Varshney vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 03.08.2021 and the relevant observations of the Court is reproduced as under:
"Thus, it had been constant view of the 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."
4. In view of above position of law, this writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 AK