Mutation Proceedings Not Meant To Decide Property Title, Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that question of property title ought not to be gone into or decided in mutation proceedings and can only be decided in a civil suit.

Upholding Naib Tehsildar's order rejecting mutation in records after 34 years, Justice J.J. Munir held,

“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.”

According to the petitioner, the disputed property is bhumidhari of the petitioner's predecessors-in-title and claimed to be in continuous possession of the land after his predecessors. Petitioner's grandfather was named Jhandu and petitioner's grandfather's sister's (Janki) husband was also named Jhandu. Lal Singh is the grandson of Janki.

Petitioner claimed to be the legal heir of Jhandu in the male line of succession and Lal Singh was removed from the succession line as he was Janki's grandson. It was also pleaded that no sale deed was executed in favour of Lal Singh and that his name was wrongly mutated in the records with respect to the land in dispute. It was argued that the mutation order passed in 1970 in favour of Lal Singh was based on misrepresentation and fraud and was ex-parte.

Claiming that he knew of the fact for the first time in 2003, petitioner applied for recall of the ex-parte order passed in 1970 by the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar rejected the application by the petitioner on grounds of delay and bar to civil court's jurisdiction in case of consolidation proceedings as per Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Firozabad which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Naib Tehsildar. This order was challenged before the Commissioner and then the Board of Revenue where the order of Naib Tehsildar was upheld.

Thereafter, petitioner approached the High Court.

The Court observed that at the time of mutation, Lal Singh was also in possession of the property. It further noted that name Jhandu would have caused the confusion in mutation proceedings and Lal Singh, being a heir from the female line of succession in the family, would be excluded under Section 171(1)(ii) read with Section 171(2)(a) and 171(2)(h) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

“The reasoning of the Commissioner is simple, and it is that, that this matter involves complicated questions of title, founded on the right of parties to inherit in preference to the other, or to claim the land in dispute failing the inheritance, by survivorship under Section 175 ZA & LR Act. No doubt, these kind of questions are beyond the competence of the Mutation Authorities to decide, considering the fact that in whatever manner and whatever be the circumstances, the fifth respondent's name came to be recorded way back on 30.09.1970.”

The Court held that the proper course for the petitioner was to raise a title dispute for declaration of title based on inheritance. It upheld the order of the Naib Tehsildar that the recall application was hopelessly barred by time.

“We must say, nevertheless, that the opinion expressed by the Naib Tahsildar about the bar of Section 49 UP CH Act is only tentative, and if a suit were brought by petitioner to establish his right under Section 171, and the same is 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.”

Accordingly, the challenge to the order of Naib Tehsildar upheld by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue was dismissed.

Case Title: Rajveer Singh v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 179

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 179

Click Here To Read/Download Order