Complicated Question Of Title Beyond Competence Of Mutation Authorities To Decide: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirming an order of the Commissioner, Agra Division.
Justice JJ Munir, Allahabad High Court
While dealing with a property dispute case where the restoration of the mutation matter was sought 34 years after the event, the Allahabad High Court has held that a complicated question of title is beyond the competence of Mutation Authorities to decide.
The High Court was considering a Writ Petition filed against the order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner and affirming an order of the Commissioner, Agra Division.
The Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir held, “The proper course for the petitioner was obviously to bring a title suit, seeking declaration of his rights that he claims on the basis of inheritance under Section 171 ZA & LR Act. The claim of the petitioner, pitted against that of the fifth respondent, no doubt, involves a complicated question of title, which is way beyond the competence of Mutation Authorities to decide. If in these circumstances, the Mutation Authority found the application to set aside the mutation order, passed 34 years ago, that is to say, 34 years antedating the making of the restoration application, to be hopelessly barred by time, we do not think that any error was committed by the Naib Tahsildar in taking that view, and, a fortiori, by the Commissioner in restoring the Naib Tahsildar’s order.”
Advocate Devendra Kumar Yadav represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel Sharad Chandra Upadhyay represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The property in dispute, measuring a total of 1.153 hectares, was bhumidhari of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title. The petitioner claimed that his predecessors-in-title were in the cultivatory possession of the aforesaid land, and after them, the petitioner was in continuous possession. The land in dispute was situated in Mauza Narkhi Taluka, District Firozabad. The writ petition was instituted by Rajveer Singh, son of Ram Dayal, who died pendente lite. He was succeeded by three of his heirs, who included the wife of the late Rajveer Singh, Rahul Kumar and Kuldeep Kumar, both sons of the late Rajveer Singh. They have been substituted as petitioners. Tikaram’s daughter, Janki, was married to Jhandu. Janki had three sons, Neksey, Deshraj and Ram Swarup. The fifth respondent, Lal Singh, is the son of Neksey.
The petitioner asserted that he, i.e. Rajveer Singh, son of Ram Dayal, is the one and only grandson of Jhandu, son of Tikaram, in the male line, and as such, Jhandu’s legal heir, entitled to inherit the bhumidhari. It was asserted by the petitioner that there was neither a sale deed nor a will executed in favour of Lal Singh, the fifth respondent, by any bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The petitioner claimed that the fifth respondent fraudulently obtained an ex parte order from the Naib Tahsildar, Uttar, Firozabad, concealing the fact that in Veela’s male line, Ram Dayal’s son, Rajveer Singh, was entitled to inherit.
The petitioner stated that he came to know about the fraud played by the respondent for the first time in the year 2003, when the fifth respondent attempted to take possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner moved for a recall of the order, but the same was rejected. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Firozabad and the matter was remanded. This order of remand was challenged by the fifth respondent, by means of a Revision before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The Divisional Commissioner restored the order of the Naib Tahsildar, rejecting the petitioner’s restoration application. The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner’s revision and affirmed the Commissioner’s order. Aggrieved, the petitioner had instituted the writ petition.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Sub-Divisional Officer had remarked that the fifth respondent too had a right of inheritance under Section 171 ZA & LR Act, being a son’s son of Jhandu, with two other of his brothers being Deshraj and Ram Swarup, all of which he suppressed and claimed by survivorship under Section 175 ZA & LR Act. “We think that, that remark by the Sub-Divisional Officer is ill founded on facts, though, again, the proceedings being summary in nature, we do not express any final opinion”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that it was ill-advised for the petitioner, who now claimed based on title, to move an application to set aside that order and seek restoration of the mutation matter 34 years after the event.
The Bench was of the view that the opinion expressed by the Naib Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act was only tentative. As per the Bench, if a suit were brought by petitioner to establish his right under Section 171, and the same was found to be within limitation, etc., the remarks of the Naib Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act would not bind parties or tie down the hands of the Court trying the title suit, in deciding that issue, also, if raised independently. Referring to the judgments in Mahesh Kumar Juneja and another v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division and others (2020) and Amritansh Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (2023), the Bench reaffirmed the principle that complicated questions of title ought not to be gone into or decided by the Mutation Authorities.
Thus, finding no ground to interfere with the orders of the Board of Revenue and the Divisional Commissioner, the Bench dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Rajveer Singh v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:59919)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Devendra Kumar Yadav
Respondent: Standing Counsel Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, Advocate Sanjay Kumar