HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 442 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, Shri Ajmal Khan, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent no.4 and Shri Veerendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. The challenge has been made to the order dated 07.03.2025, passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision No. 3573 of 2023/ Kushinagar (Computerized Case No. R 20230544003573) Saman Fatima @ Rukhsana Vs. Sulochana Devi & others under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 relating to Plot No. 3885 area 0.66 acre situated in Nagar Panchayat Kaptanganj, Mauja Basahiya @ Kaptanganj, Tappa Parwarpar, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owner of the disputed land on account of the fact that at the time of passing of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act the said land was vested in the Municipal areas and therefore was not within the purview of Z.R. & L.R. Act subsequently stated in 1956 the Urban Zamindari Abolition Act was enacted which also pertains agricultural lands in the Urban areas and the present disputed lands, according to the petitioners is the non agricultural land and therefore even the provision of Act 1956 did not apply. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners claim their ownership rights over the said land did not abolish on coming into force of the Act of 1952 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Samarth Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ajmal Khan, Veerendra Kumar Tiwari Sulochana Devi And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenueu.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) and Act of 1956. He further submits that the Second Appeal No. 597 of 2022, District Kushinagar is pending before the Board of Revenue. In the present proceedings arise at out of that correction of Revenue Record/ Mutation Entries in the Revenue records. 5. This Court is of the considered view that this Court would not have jurisdiction over the orders passed for correction of the revenue record, as has been held by this Court in the case of Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue and others passed in Writ B No. 295 of 2022. 6. In Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.15, the principle that entries in revenue records do not confer any title was reiterated and referring to the previous decisions in Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah,16 Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand17 and H.P. v. Keshav Ram18, it was stated thus :- "21. This Court in several judgments has held that the revenue records do not confer title. In Corpn. of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah this Court held that: (SCC p. 615, para 5) ''5. ...It is firmly established that the revenue records are not documents of title, and the question of interpretation of a document not being a document of title is not a question of law.'' In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand this Court has held that: (SCC p. 352, para 2) ''2. ...that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of title.'' In State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram this Court held that: (SCC p. 259, para 5) "'5. ...an entry in the revenue papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs.'' 7. A similar view was taken in the case of Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (Smt.) and others19 and it was observed that the mutation of name in the revenue records does not have the effect of creating or extinguishing the title nor has any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person concerned to pay land revenue. It was stated thus :- "7...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..." 8. The principle that an entry in revenue records is only for fiscal purpose and does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights WRIB No. 442 of 2025 2 and title to the property can only be decided by a competent civil court was reiterated in the decision of Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Financial Commissioner and others20 and it was stated as follows :- "9...It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court..." 9. The legal position that entries in revenue records do not confer any title has been considered and discussed in a recent decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Vs. Union of India & Ors.21 and Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Moradabad Division and others4 and it was restated that ordinarily orders passed by mutation courts are not to be interfered in writ jurisdiction as they are summary proceedings, and as such subject to a regular suit. 10. The settled legal position that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights and that such entries are only for "fiscal purpose" and no ownership is conferred on the basis thereof and further that the question of title of a property can only be decided by a competent civil court has again been restated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others22 wherein after referring to the previous authorities on the point in Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner20, Suman Verma Vs. Union of India21, Faqruddin Vs. Tajuddin14, Rajinder Singh Vs. State of J & K23, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra24, T Ravi Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha25, Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar Vs. Arthur Import & Export Co.26 Prahlad Pradhar Vs. Sonu Kumhar27 and Ajit Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh28, it was observed thus :- "8. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of WRIB No. 442 of 2025 3 Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70." 11. 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. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that such petitions are not to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The consistent legal position with regard to the nature of mutation proceedings, as has been held in the previous decisions, may be stated as follows :- (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) mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries; (v) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (vi) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court. 12. Apart from the above, I find that substantial right of the parties is still pending for adjudication in Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue and in case second appeal is decided the entire dispute shall come to an end with regard to the title of the disputing parties. 13. Accordingly with the consent of the parties and in the interest of justice the present petition is being disposed of by passing a direction to respondent no.1 i.e. the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow to decide the Second Appeal No. 597 of 2022 say within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. WRIB No. 442 of 2025 4 Needless to say any order passed by the Board of Revenue shall come up illegally proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue, Act, 1901. August 27, 2025 Muk WRIB No. 442 of 2025 5 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench