- (1.) IN proceedings under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 an order was passed directing for deletion of name of the petitioner Mathura against gata no. 557 area 0.1250 and gata no. 558 Kha area 0.0650 hectare and to record the name of the tenure holder as it appeared earlier. This order was passed on 2.12.1991. Petitioner applied for recall of the aforesaid order. On the recall application, the order was recalled on 17.2.1992 but no reason for recalling was given in the order. The appeal of respondent no. 5 against the aforesaid order was allowed on the ground that the order has been passed without there being any material to show any right of the petitioner over the land in dispute. The revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.
(2.) CHALLENGING the above orders petitioner has come up in this writ petition and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute for the last over 15 years. Therefore, his name is liable to be recorded in the revenue records. Section 54 of the Act provides for the disposal of disputes regarding entries in the annual register as specified under Section 33 of the Act. It provides that where the dispute is not resolved by the Naib Tehsildar, it shall be referred to the Assistant Record Officer for disposal accordingly to Section 40,41 and 53 as the case may be and where the dispute involves question of title it shall be decided in a summery manner. According to Section 40 of the Act disputes regarding entries in annual registers are to be decided on the basis of possession of parties. Provisions of Section 41 and 43 of the Act are in respect of settlement of boundary disputes and rent payable which do not govern disputes of entries. Section 40-A of the Act lays down that orders passed under Section 39, 40 or 54 of the Act, apart from certain other orders, would not be a bar for instituting any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in the holding. It means that irrespective of the orders passed aforesaid under the provisions, parties are free to get their rights on a holding adjudicated before competent court. Moreover, the orders passed under Section 39, 40 and 54 of the Act are of a summary nature, they are subject to determination of rights by the competent jurisdiction. In pith and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries and settlement of disputes as to entries in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under 40 and 54 of the Act are all summery proceedings subject to determination of rights of the parties in holding by the competent court of jurisdiction. The law is well-settled that: (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) the order of mutation does not in any way effect the title of the parties over the land in dispute; and (v) such orders or entries are not documents of title and are subject to decision of the competent court.
(3.) IT is equally settled that the orders for mutation are passed on the basis of the possession of the parties and since no substantive rights of the parties are decided in mutation proceedings, ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of orders passed in mutation proceedings unless found to be totally without jurisdiction or contrary to the title already decided by the competent court. The parties are always free to get their rights in respect of the disputed land adjudicated by competent court. The present case does not fall in any of the above exceptions. In view of the above, as no substantive rights of the parties have been decided or are likely to be decided in the pending proceedings, no case for exercise of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition with direction to the authority concerned to complete the mutation proceedings, if any, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order with liberty to the parties to get their rights over the land in dispute, if necessary, adjudicated or declared by the competent court of jurisdiction. The order passed in the mutation proceedings would abide by the decision of the competent court, if any, and the said court would not, in any manner, be influenced by any finding or observation made in the mutation orders or during mutation proceedings.;