Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8634 (UTT)

Puskar Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Kumaon

2026-01-02

Pankaj Purohit

body2026
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 24.04.2014, passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital and order dated 14.06.2010, passed by learned Collector, Nainital. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deed dated 04.12.2006 from respondent no.6 i.e., Dayakishan. The land in dispute i.e., Khata Khatoni No.00031 admeasuring 0.8220 hectares originally belonged to Shree Vishan Dutt and after his death was entered in the name of his five sons who got 1/5th share of the property. The petitioner purchased the share of Dayakishan by a registered sale deed and thereafter taking possession on the purchased land moved an application for mutation before learned Tehsildar, Kaladhungi, Nainital and vide order dated 12.12.2007 the same was mutated in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent nos.4 and 5 filed an appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, before learned Collector, Nainital, which was registered as Appeal No.52/29 of the year 2008-09, Vipin Chandra and another Vs. Pushkar Singh and another, this appeal was allowed by the learned Collector vide order dated 14.06.2010 and the matter was remitted to the learned trial court with a direction that the learned trial court should verify the possession of the parties and pass speaking order, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 24.04.2014. Hence the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the impugned orders have been passed by the learned courts below in a cursory and cryptic manner without considering the legal facts that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute vide a registered sale deed dated 04.12.2006 from its lawful owner and the learned Tehsildar has rightly mutated the name in his favour. He further submits that the vendor i.e., respondent no.6 was the sole and lawful owner of the impugned property and therefore had absolute right to sell it. He further submits that the vendor i.e., respondent no.6 was the sole and lawful owner of the impugned property and therefore had absolute right to sell it. He further submits that the appellate court and revisional court failed to consider the fact that in the relevant khasra and khatoni the land in dispute is entered in the name of the petitioner after following the valid procedure for mutation. The courts also failed to consider that the possession of the land and title of the same has also been passed to the petitioner from respondent no.6. 4. The learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that the actual facts of the case are that respondent no.6 is the step brother of respondent nos.4 and 5 and when their father i.e. Vishan Dutt died respondent nos.4 and 5 were minors and during that time respondent no.6 very cleverly got his name mutated in the revenue records. When respondent nos.4 and 5 got to know about this act they filed a Revenue Suit No.22/173 of the year 1999-2000, before the court of learned Assistant Collector under Section 229-B/176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, claiming their rights over the said land and partition thereof. He further submits that both the learned courts below have rightly remitted the matter to the learned trial court as respondent no.6 could not have sold the property until a fix share of property was transferred to his name by way of a partition. 5. 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. 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. 6. 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 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. 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.” 7. The ratio of these case laws conveniently be applied in this case. 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 and he may approach the competent court as per the provision of Section 40A of the U.P.L.R. Act, 1901.