Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 Gaon Sabha.
This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
By the order of Additional Sub Divisional Officer Etah dated 12.10.2018 the objections filed by the petitioners have been rejected and the earlier order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 30.12.1995 has been upheld whereby the entries in the revenue records have been expunged. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Aligarh on 05.11.2019.
At the very outset, Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha, raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mathura Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (4) AWC 3825 had already held that such proceedings cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file a regular suit.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it is clear that the proceedings initiated under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and the remedy available to the petitioners is by filing a regular suit before the competent authority and no writ petition lies against the order passed by the revenue authorities exercising jurisdiction in such matter.
In Mathura (Supra) this Court while dealing with this aspect as regards the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 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 ad