The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that mutation proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 are summary in nature and strictly for fiscal purposes, deciding neither title nor ownership. The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging mutation orders, ruling that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in such matters unless specific exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed the petition filed by Gangaram Mishra, observing that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent civil court where a suit regarding the title dispute is already pending.
Background of the Case
The dispute relates to agricultural land in Village Chhitirgavan, Tehsil Bhanpur, District Basti, which is admittedly joint family property.
According to the factual matrix, on July 25, 2016, the petitioner’s brother, Tulsi Ram, executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no. 6, Sushila Devi. The petitioner, Gangaram Mishra, contended that this transfer was made in excess of the vendor’s undivided share and without a prior partition. On the same date, the petitioner’s mother allegedly executed a registered Will in his favour.
Mutation proceedings were initiated based on the sale deed. The Tehsildar, by an order dated October 18, 2021, allowed mutation in favour of Sushila Devi. The petitioner filed a recall application and objections, but the Tehsildar reaffirmed the mutation entry on February 5, 2024.
Subsequent challenges by the petitioner were also unsuccessful. His appeal under Section 35(2) of the Code was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on July 18, 2024, and a revision petition under Section 210 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Region, on October 4, 2025.
Concurrently, Original Suit No. 18 of 2017, filed by the petitioner and his mother seeking adjudication of title and challenging the sale deed, is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.
Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the mutation orders were illegal because the sale deed was executed beyond the share of the transferor and without partition. It was further submitted that the revenue authorities failed to consider the Will and the objections raised by the petitioner.
In response, the Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and the counsel for the private respondent contended that the impugned orders arose out of mutation proceedings, which are summary in nature and do not decide title. They argued that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil court, where the title dispute is already pending, and noted that the petitioner’s application for an interim injunction in that suit had been rejected.
Court’s Analysis
The Court centered its analysis on the legal position regarding the maintainability of writ petitions challenging mutation orders, relying on the judgment in Smt. Kalawati v. The Board of Revenue (2022 (2) ADJ 456).
Justice Srivastava restated the principles from the Kalawati case, emphasizing the “summary and fiscal character of mutation proceedings.” The Court observed that proceedings under Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are undertaken for updating revenue records and facilitating land revenue collection.
“They neither create, confer, extinguish nor determine substantive rights or title to property. Mutation entries do not constitute title documents or operate as deeds of conveyance,” the Court noted.
The bench further elaborated that such entries have “no presumptive or evidentiary value on title” and are always subject to final adjudication by a competent court. Section 39 of the Code expressly stipulates that mutation orders do not debar any person from establishing their rights in a suit.
Regarding the scope of Article 226, the Court held that writ petitions against mutation orders are generally not entertainable. “The extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence, correct errors of fact or law, or interfere in summary fiscal proceedings,” the judgment stated.
The Court listed the seven specific exceptions where writ jurisdiction may be exercised, including cases where the order is without jurisdiction, violates natural justice, is obtained through fraud, or where rights already adjudicated by a civil court are ignored.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Court found that the core dispute involved complex questions of title, succession, and the validity of conveyance, which are “quintessentially fit for detailed trial before a civil court and wholly inappropriate for summary interference in writ jurisdiction.”
The Court observed that the impugned orders merely directed mutation based on a prima facie consideration of the registered sale deed and possession. It found that none of the exceptions laid down in the Kalawati case were attracted, as there was no jurisdictional defect, fraud, or violation of natural justice.
“Entertaining this petition would circumvent the pending civil suit, multiply proceedings, and erode the fiscal/summary nature of mutation,” the bench remarked.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as “not entertainable.”
However, the Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the pending Original Suit No. 18 of 2017 or institute other appropriate legal proceedings for a declaration of title.
“Any such civil or revenue court/authority shall independently adjudicate the matter strictly on merits in accordance with law, wholly uninfluenced by the impugned mutation orders (being purely fiscal in nature) or any observation contained herein,” Justice Srivastava directed.
Case Details
Case Title: Gangaram Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 6 others
Case No: Writ-C No. 41243 of 2025
Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Petitioner: Ram Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondents: Ashutosh Pandey, C.S.C., J.N. Maurya (CSC), Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, Puneet Kumar Upadhyay
