2025:UHC:1324 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 1951 of 2023 U25UPUth UPU February, 2025 Shivang Mathur --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand Ms. Surraiya Naaz, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for Gram Sabha/respondent No. 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Petitioner purchased a piece of land from one Mr. Sambhu S/o Banshi, through his power of attorney holder, by a registered sale deed dated 14.01.2003. Subsequently, one Mr. Mahender Singh S/o Somati Prasad also purchased a small piece of land from Sambhu S/o Banshi, allegedly out of the land which was earlier sold by Sambhu to the petitioner. 2. Mahender Singh applied for mutation of his name in revenue records in respect of the land purchased by him. Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun allowed his prayer for mutation by order dated 22.06.2004. 3. Petitioner filed an application on 29.08.2007 for recall of the order dated 22.06.2004, passed by Tehsildar in favour of Mahender Singh, which was rejected by the Tehsildar vide order dated 30.09.2015 on the ground of delay. 1 2025:UHC:1324 4. Petitioner challenged the said order before Board of Revenue in a Revision Petition, which was allowed by Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 14.07.2016 and the matter was remanded back to Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar for deciding mutation case afresh. 5. Upon remand of the matter, the Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, passed an order dated 12.02.2021, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner has also challenged the judgment, rendered by Board of Revenue, in his Revision Petition by which Tehsildar’s order dated 12.02.2021 was affirmed. 6. Order impugned, passed by the Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, is on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Perusal of the same reveals that Tehsildar has rejected petitioner’s prayer for restoration of the mutation case by holding that Sambhu S/o Banshi, from whom petitioner purchased the land, belong to Scheduled Caste community and Mahender Singh S/o late Somati Prasad also belong to Scheduled Caste community, while petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste community but belongs to General Category, therefore transfer of land made by Sambhu in favour of petitioner is not valid, while transfer made by Sambhu in favour of Mahender Singh was valid as both belonged to Scheduled Caste community. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no evidence was led by Sambhu or his descendents to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community; Mahender Singh also do not lead any evidence to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the finding returned by Tehsildar, that petitioner belongs to 2 2025:UHC:1324 unreserved category, is also without any evidence on record. Thus he submits that observation made by Tehsildar, in the impugned order dated 12.02.2021, that the sale made in favour of petitioner is not valid, as the vendor belonged to Scheduled Caste community, while petitioner belongs to General category, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Tehsildar, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun exceeded his jurisdiction by returning a finding on the question of title, in mutation proceedings. 9. Learned State Counsel refers to provision contained under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which imposes restriction on transfer of land by members of Scheduled Caste community. Learned State Counsel, however, concedes that in mutation proceeding, question of title cannot be decided. 10. Section 40A of Land Revenue Act, 1901 provides that 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. Law is well settled that in mutation proceedings, disputed question of title cannot be decided. Tehsildar has made an observation on the question of title of the petitioner regarding the land purchased by him from Mr. Sambhu. Learned State Counsel submits that as per records, there was no evidence available before the Tehsildar for recording a finding that sale deed made by Sambhu in favour of petitioner was invalid. 3 2025:UHC:1324 12. It is settled position in law that this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution normally do not interfere with an order of mutation, as mutation does not confer title and it is done only for fiscal purpose i.e. collection of land revenue. However, observation made by Tehsildar on the question of title is unwarranted which deserves to be expunged. Therefore, observation made by Tehsildar on the question of title, as affirmed by Board of Revenue, is expunged. 13. The Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to approach the competent Court of law for declaration of his rights over the land in question. The mutation, if any, made in favour of Mahender Singh, will not have any bearing in the regular suit filed by petitioner. For a period of 30 days, no third party interest shall be created over the land in question. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 25Pth Mahinder P February, 2025 4