Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8759 of 2020 Petitioner :- Bhagwan Das And Another Respondent :- Collector District Jalaun And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Jadaun,Mujeeb Khan,Vineet Vikram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 41 of the L.R. Act. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Revision No. 69- 35 of 2012-13 (Smt. Kishori Devi Vs. Smt. Janaki Devi and others).
Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 1907 days in filing the petition. There is no explanation for such a delay in approaching this Court.
A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that proceedings under Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature, against which no writ petition lies and only remedy left to the petitioners is filing a regular suit for declaration.
Having heard learned Standing Counsel as well as from perusal of the records, it appears that proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary in nature as from the reading of Section 41 (2) (a) it transpires that the Collector was to make a summary inquiry as to who is the person best entitled to the property and after making such inquiry shall place such person in possession. It is only against the order passed under Section 41 that a revision under Section 219 lies.
The U.P. Land Revenue Act was repealed on 11.02.2016 by insertion of Section 230 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is para materia to Section 41 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which also provides for summary inquiry by the Sub Divisional Officer and the proceedings are summary in nature. The order passed under Section 24 (2) is appealable before the Commissioner under Section 24 (4) and the order of Commissioner is final.
The law in this regard has already been settled by this Court as well as Apex Court in catena of judgments wherein it has been held that proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of dispute as to entries in annual register are all summary proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in the holding by a competent court of jurisdiction.
This Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 held as under;
"5. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction.
6. 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.
3. 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."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Juneja and Ors. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial, Moradabad Division and Ors. 2020 (3) ADJ 104 reiterated the same view and held as under;
"16. The settled legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent judgment of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.13.
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 and 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."
In Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2019 (5) ADJ 212 Division Bench of this Court while dealing with an issue in regard to the land acquisition proceedings had the occasion to discuss the matter relating to revenue records and held as under;
"37. This Court may also take into consideration that it is settled law that the revenue records do not confer title and even if the entries in the revenue record of rights carry value that by itself would not confer any title upon the person claiming on the basis of the same.
38. The Supreme Court in Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors.3 held that entry in Jamabandi (revenue records) are not proof of title, and it was stated as follows:-
"2. ...It is settled law that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. It is for the parties to establish the relationship or title to the property unless there is unequivocal admission..."
Apex Court in case of Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. MANU/SC/0001/2014 while dealing with the entries of the revenue records relying upon the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, held that revenue records are not the document of title and the same cannot be basis for declaration of title. Relevant paragraph no. 17 is extracted here as under;
"17. This Court in several Judgments has held that the revenue records does not confer title. In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah and another (1989) 3 SCC 612 held that "it is firmly established that revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of document not being a document of title is not a question of law." In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and others (1993) 4 SCC 349 this Court has held that "that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title". In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 this Court held that "the entries in the revenue papers, by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff."
In a recent judgment in case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) through L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. MANU/SC/0112/2019, decided on 31.01.2019, Apex Court held that mutation of a land in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over the land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are extracted here as under;
"8. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591).
9. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference."
In view of the above, as the proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which is para materia to Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature and once the parties had availed the statutory remedy of appeal/revision before the revenue authorities, no writ petition lies before this Court as the entries in revenue records do not confer any title and it is only the competent court to declare the rights of the aggrieved party in a regular suit filed for declaration.
Thus, no interference can be made by this Court in the order passed by the revenue authorities in summary proceedings and writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. However, it is open for the petitioners to file declaratory suit claiming their right over the land in dispute.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Shekhar