Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1694 (ALL)

Rahmana Begam v. Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh

2018-08-01

RAJIV JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.A. Rizvi for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.4.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision filed by the respondent no.6 was allowed. 3. The facts apparent from the record are that power of attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 5 Kamaruddin on 26.2.1999 subsequently the said power of attorney was canceled. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of power of attorney two sale deeds were executed by Kamaruddin in favour of his wife respondent no. 6 and his sister-in-law respondent no. 7 on 14.8.2006 and 10.8.2006 respectively. 4. On the strength of sale deed the Tehsildar allowed the mutation application filed by the respondent no. 6. Against that order a revision was filed which was allowed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 22.11.2007. Against the said order petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut which was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2008. Thereafter the respondent no. 6 filed a revision under Section 219 of Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow which was allowed vide impugned order dated 17.4.2018. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue has wrongly passed the impugned order and has not taken into consideration the fact that the power of attorney had already been canceled prior to execution of sale deed and therefore, the name of respondent no. 6 cannot be mutated. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent specifically stated that on the date the sale deed was executed the power of attorney was very much in existence, the power of attorney was cancelled after the execution of the sale deed. 7. I have considered the rival submission of the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 8. The Board of Revenue, in the impugned order, recorded a finding that the sale deed was executed after the cancellation of power of attorney and the power of attorney was in existence and therefore, there is no illegality in mutating the name of the petitioner. 9. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has also filed a suit no. 9. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner has also filed a suit no. 174 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meerut for cancellation of aforesaid sale deeds which is still pending. 10. Section 40-A of the Land Revenue Act provides as under: "No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding". 11. The proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries or settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act, initiated or decided under Section 34/35, 39, 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery in nature subject to determination of rights of the parties by the competent court of jurisdiction. 12. Section 40-A of the Act lays down that orders passed under Section 35, 39, 40 or 54 of the Act, apart from certain other orders, would not be a bar for instituting any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in the holding. It means that irrespective of the orders passed under the aforesaid provisions, parties are free to get their rights on a holding adjudicated before competent court. 13. 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. 14. 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. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court. 15. In view of the settled legal position as indicated above, this Court decline to interfere with the impugned order passed in the proceedings summary in nature. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.