Allahabad High Court Sets Out "Exceptions" Where Writ Petition Can Be Maintained Against Orders Passed In Mutation Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court recently set out the exceptions under which a writ petition may be entertained against orders passed in mutation proceedings.

Fundamentally, mutation proceedings are summary in nature and are drawn on the basis of possession. Such proceedings do not decide any question of title of the parties over the land involved, in the sense that they neither extinguish nor create a title.

Tellingly, mutation in revenue records does not have any presumptive value on the title and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. Additionally, any mutation order or revenue entry passed is only for fiscal purposes to enable the State to collect revenue from the person recorded and such order or entry is not construed as a document of title and is subject to the decision of the competent court.

An order passed in such a proceeding does not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. It is for this reason that it has consistently been held that a petition which challenges a mutation order is not to be entertained by the High Court(s) in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, the Bench comprising Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava was faced with a question as to whether any exception can be carved out to the aforesaid settled position with regard to non-interference in matters arising out of mutation proceedings in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, and if so what would the facts and circumstances under which a writ petition may be entertained in such matters.

The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the mutation order on the grounds that the order passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents was founded on the basis of the claim of the petitioner asserting herself to be the second wife of the recorded tenure holder and to support her claim reliance was placed on various pieces of documentary evidence.

It enlisted the following exceptions to the rule:

(i) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;

(ii) rights and title of the parties have already been decided by a competent court, and that has been varied in mutation proceedings;

(iii) mutation has been directed not on the basis of possession or on the basis of some title deed, but after entering into questions relating to entitlement to succeed the property, touching the merits of the rival claims;

(iv) rights have been created which are against provisions of any statute, or the entry itself confers a title by virtue of some statutory provision;

(v) the orders have been obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, or by fabricating documents;

(vi) the order suffers from some patent jurisdictional error i.e. in cases where there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or abuse of jurisdiction;

(vii) there has been a violation of principles of natural justice.