2025:UHC:4888 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1618/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Singh Bora, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief: “Issue a rule, order or direction restraining the Learned Assistant Consolidation Officer, Kichha District Udham Singh Nagar of Case No. 647 of 2025 Kamal Singh Patwal & others Vs. Yadvendra Singh & others from mutating the name during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 267 of 2024 Gurnam Singh Vs. Yadvendra Singh & others whereby the learned Civil Judge (Civil Court) Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar passed order dated 14.05.2025 restraining the 3rd party interest.” 3. It transpires that an Agreement to Sell in respect of a piece of land was executed in favour of the petitioner, by a person who was not having title over the land in question at the relevant point of time. He was merely in possession over Government land and his name was recorded in Category 4. 4. Subsequently, possession of the person who had executed Agreement to Sell in favour of petitioner, was regularised under Government Policy by the State Government and he was conferred Bhumidhari rights in the year 2024. 5. Immediately after grant of bhumidhari rights, said person executed the Sale Deed in favour of some other person. The person in whose favour Sale Deed was executed in 2024, has applied for mutating his name in the revenue records on the strength of sale 2025:UHC:4888 deed. 6. Petitioner contends that since an Agreement to Sell was executed in his favour prior in point of time, therefore name of the person who purchased the land in 2024, cannot be mutated, therefore the Consolidation Court be directed not to proceed in the mutation application filed by the purchaser. 7. This Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed for. 8. On the date when Agreement to Sell was executed in favour of petitioner, the vendor was not having any title over the land in question. Thus no right, title or interest was passed on to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for specific performance of contract. 10. Law is well settled that mutation or entry of name in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title. If petitioner succeeds in the suit pending before the Civil Court, then his name may be ordered to be mutated. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.06.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2 f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4 626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.06.19 15:20:14 +05'30'