2025:UHC:9397 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1182 of 2018 16th October, 2025 Padmendra Singh ………….Petitioner Versus Chairman Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Joshi, B.H. for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for respondent no.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner by which he has sought the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, passed by learned Board of Revenue in Revision No.91/2007-08, Bihari Lal S/o Kirti ram Vs. Padmendra Singh S/o Sunder Singh. ii. Issue a suitable rule order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 not to create any third party interest over the land in dispute having Khasra No.3747, 3748 and 3749.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner alleges that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner were the hissedar of Plot No.3148 measuring 5 naali, 13 mutthi of the ibatasan settlement Khata No.7 and the perusal of the records would clearly show that Kuta s/o Thuni was recorded as Sirtan of the aforesaid land. Thereafter the new settlement Plot No.3747, 3748 and 3749 were carved out from the aforesaid Plot No.3148. Respondent no.4 made an application for correction of records before the court of learned Tehsildar Pauri-Garhwal with a prayer that Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749 are entered both in Khata 1 2025:UHC:9397 Khatoni Nos.111 and 142, therefore they may be deleted from Khata Khatoni No.111. The aforesaid matter was registered as Correction Case No.45/85-86, Bihari Lal Vs. Padmendra Singh. The aforesaid case was rejected by learned Tehsildar, Pauri-Garhwal vide order dated 11.02.1987 on the ground that even after several opportunities the respondent failed to bring original settlement records. No legal remedy was availed by respondent no.4 against the aforesaid order. Hence the order became final, but respondent no.4 concealing the aforesaid fact filed another correction application dated 08.03.1988 before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal with the same prayer and the case was registered as Correction Case No.19 of 1988-89. The petitioner further alleges that from the bare perusal of the aforesaid application dated 08.03.1988 reveals that the petitioner was in actual cultivator possession of the aforesaid land bearing Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749. It is also clear from the averments made in the application that the vendors of respondent no.4 have Sirdari possession in Plot Nos.3747, 3748 and 3749. But inspite of the fact that the petitioner was recorded tenure holder the respondent no.4 did not made him a party in the Correction Case No.1988-89 and the entire proceedings of the entire case was ex parte against the petitioner. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal allowed the aforesaid case in favour of respondent no.4 vide order dated 05.05.1989. Thereafter against the aforesaid ex parte order the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Commissioner, Garhwal, which was registered as Revenue Revision No.6 of 1990-91, Padmendra Singh Vs. Bihari Lal. The learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal on merits after hearing the parties concerned 2 2025:UHC:9397 made reference to the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.08.1991. The aforesaid revision was allowed by the judicial member of Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh vide its order dated 11.05.2000 and the matter was remanded back to learned Assistant Collector, Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal which was thereafter registered as Case No.1 of 2002, Bihar Lal Vs. Padmendra Singh. The learned Assistant Collector, Barahasyun, Pauri-Garhwal vide its order dated 27.03.2006 allowed the case of respondent no.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision before the court of learned Commissioner, Garhwal, which was registered as Revenue Revision No.6 of 2006-07 and the learned Commissioner vide order dated 15.07.2008 allowed the revision of the petitioner on the grounds that long standing entries in favour of the petitioner cannot be corrected under the proceedings of Sections 33 and 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent no.4 filed a second revision before the court of learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, which was registered as Revenue Revision No.91 of 2007-08, thereafter the aforesaid matter was transmitted to Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue allowed the revision of respondent no.4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue committed irregularity in passing the aforesaid order as he failed to consider the settled position of law that long standing entries in favour of a recorded tenure holder cannot be corrected under Sections 33 and 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. He further failed to consider the fact predecessor in interest of respondent no.4 were only Asami and therefore did not have right to sell the property to anyone and even after commencement of KUZA all the Asamis were made Sirdars 3 2025:UHC:9397 and thereafter Bhumidar with non transferable right. He further submits that the Board of Revenue also failed to consider the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the entries in khatoni earlier as his possession was never in a cloud and he had title to that property. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 in his counter affidavit submits that the facts in brief are that in British regime Unhattar Singh Negi, grandfather of the petitioner was the Hissedar of Khasra No.3148 and in-lieu of his personal service this plot was given to a poor schedule caste tenant, Kuta Mistri in the year 1920 who was never evicted by the successors of Late Shri Unhattar Singh Negi. Moreover no rent was also imposed upon Kutta Mistri or his successors. Thereafter in the recent settlement held from 1960 to 1965. The revenue records were prepared and a separate khatoni in the name of Balli and Gundi sons of Kuta Mistri was issued, but due to the clerical mistake of the Revenue Officials the name of the petitioner was also recorded in the official records despite of the fact that the petitioner was not in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers and had no legal rights therein. He further submits that respondent no.4 belongs to schedule caste and has purchased 3 naali, 9 mutthi land in Khasra No.3747 and 3748 from Baldev @ Balli and Baljeet @ Gundi sons of late Kuta Mistri vide registered sale deed dated 12.10.1970 after paying consideration of ₹1,800/- and thereafter the name of respondent no.4 was mutated on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed and the rights created in his favour were that of the bhumidar with transferable rights and after obtaining due permission from Zila Adhikari, Paur-Garhwal he started construction on the aforesaid land, but the petitioner because of his ulterior motives started disturbing his possession in spite of the fact that respondent no.4 was planting trees in the 4 2025:UHC:9397 aforesaid land since 1970 and petitioner never objected to his possession on the aforesaid land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit stated that the petitioner never objected to the possession of respondent no.4 as the title of the petitioner was never under cloud and the public documents i.e., Revenue Records, Jotbahi of the land in question was in favour of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that mutation and correction proceedings are summary in nature and it does not confer any title over the property and this is only for the fiscal purposes. My view is further fortified by a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner rendered in (2007) 6 SCC 186 wherein, it is observed and held 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. 7. Moreover, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Dei and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and Others, decided on 21.11.2020 in WPMS No.73 of 2013 has held that it is a settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a 5 2025:UHC:9397 title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. The relevant paras are extracted herein as below:- “2. It is the settled law that the proceedings under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, are summary in nature and any adjudication which is made on the same, does not decide a title of the parties litigating over an issue for getting themselves to be recorded in the revenue records. Rather to the contrary, the Law contemplates that any entries which are made as a consequences of the orders passed under the proceedings which are provided under Sections 34 and 39 of the Land Revenue Act, would only be having a fiscal affect because it only determines the entitlement of the State and liability of a person/revenue holder, to ensure the remittance of the Land Revenue, payable towards the land which was the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, it has been consistently held by the High Courts, that no Writ Petition, as against the aforesaid judgments would be maintainable before the High Court. Some of the judgments, the reference of which has been made by the counsel for the respondents in relation to the aforesaid subject, have been reported in 2004 (97) RD 696, Smt. Manorma Devi and others vs. Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others; 2002 (93) RD 510, Smt. Gyan Mati Vs. Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Basti Division and others; 1996 (6) SCC 223, Sawarni (Smt) vs. Inder Kaur (Smt) and others as well as 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3038, Smt. Rani Devi vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow and others. 3. In view of the aforesaid ratio, it has been consistently held by the Courts, that, any adjudication which is made in a mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1901 would always be a subject to the provisions contained under Section 40A of the Land Revenue Act, i.e. if any person is aggrieved against the determination made or on a denial made to record, his name in the Revenue records, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, the effected person will have had to resort the proceedings of instituting the regular suit for deciding their rights.” 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, any observations as made above will not come on the way of the petitioner if he approaches a competent Court of law for adjudication of his rights over the property in question. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.10.2025 SK 6