By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 27.12.1999, 29.4.2002 and 17.2.2004 passed by respondent no.3, 2 and 1 respectively.
The plot in dispute is Khata no. 96 recorded in the Khatauni of 1389 fasli stated to be recorded in the name of one Smt. Tersi widow of late Kisun, Bharath, Gulab, Badshah and Garib recorded in Varg III, old no. 145 area 4-5-00 of which the new no. is 224.
According to the petitioners, under consolidation proceedings, objections were filed by the Gaon Sabha Gopur, Pargana Shadiabad, District Ghazipur, under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the same was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 12.6.1990. Thereafter proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 were initiated before the Naib Tehsildar respondent no.3 who rejected the objections filed by the petitioners by his order dated 9.9.1996 and directed that the name of Smt. Tersi be recorded in the plot in question. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent no.2 and the appellate authority also directed that the plot in question will be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha by the impugned order dated 29.4.2002. The revision filed by the petitioners was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial II) Region Varanasi by the third impugned order dated 17.2.2004.
I have heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned additional chief standing counsel representing the respondents 1,2 and 7. None appears for respondents 4 and 5.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the mutation proceedings an order was passed on 12.6.1990 rejecting the objections filed by the Gaon Sabha under Section 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, copy of the order has been filed in the writ petition as annexure 2. Reading of this order does not disclose as to which plot it relates. In neither of the impugned orders also this order dated 12.6.1990 has been referred too.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was also not able to point out whether this order has been placed before the respondent authority in the proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Be that as it may, proceeding under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act are mere summary proceeding and do not confer any right or title on the parties. Right and title in respect of any disputed land or plot is a matter to be ultimately determined and settled in appropriate suit proceedings.
The Supreme Court in the case reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223 (Smt. Sawarni versus Smt. Inder Kaur and others) has held that proceedings in respect of mutation of property in the revenue records are only for purposes of determination of the person/persons who are concerned with payment of land revenue. These proceedings do not lead to determination of right or title of any party to the property in question. Para 7 reads as follows:-
"...........Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question......."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that any such suit was filed by the petitioners under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for declaration of his right and title over the plot in question nor is there any mention to that effect in the writ petition.
However, as already noted above the proceedings under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, 1901 are merely summary proceedings and do not confer any right or title on the parties.
There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.11.2012 N Tiwari