Mutation Cannot Be Allowed Based On Sale Deed Allegedly Executed 45 Years Ago: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though there is no limitation for mutation in revenue records, the same cannot be allowed based on sale deed allegedly executed 45 years ago. Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed“It is material to mention that mutation application have been filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed...
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though there is no limitation for mutation in revenue records, the same cannot be allowed based on sale deed allegedly executed 45 years ago.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed
“It is material to mention that mutation application have been filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour which should not be allowed although there is no limitation for filing the mutation application but the filing of mutation application after more than 45 years, creates doubt about the document in question.”
One Nathu Singh's name was recorded over the plots in question. After his death in 1968, his legal heirs, petitioners and other family members were mutated in the records. In 2012, heirs of one Todi Singh filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking declaration as co-sharers of ½ of the plot. The suit was dismissed, subsequent appeal was also dismissed.
Thereafter, in 2016, one Sanjay moved an application seeking mutation based on a sale deed allegedly executed in 1970 by Sri Nathu Singh. This application was dismissed. Another mutation application was filed by other respondents seeking mutation of their names based on a sale deed executed by Nathu Singh in 1968. This application was allowed.
Petitioners, herein, filed an appeal before the SDO which was allowed. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal against the order of the SDO. However, the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the SDO and the Additional Commissioner and directed the SDM to decide afresh. Against this, the petitioners approached the High Court.
The Court relied on a case of the Allahabad High Court in Shardul Ranjan and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, wherein it was held
“Although no limitation has been provided for mutation but in the case of inheritance on the basis of unregistered Will, delay in disclosing the Will itself create a doubt in respect of its genuineness. In these circumstances the Will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the propounders have failed to explain suspicious circumstances.”
Holding that the SDO had rightly rejected the mutation application after 45 years, the Court held that mutation cannot be kept pending indefinite period and the same must be granted finality.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order of the Board of Revenue and upheld the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Case Title: Dalbir And 3 Others Versus Board Of Revenue Prayagraj And 18 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121