MATHURA Vs. STATE OF U P THROUGH REVENUE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U P LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.