Mutation Orders and Writ Jurisdiction: Navigating the ‘Lal Bachan’ Exceptions

Picture of Name

Name

The Mutation Maze: When Can You Knock on the High Court’s Door

Generally, a Writ Petition is not maintainable against orders passed in mutation proceedings.

However, this is not an absolute bar. There are specific, well-settled exceptions where a High Court will entertain a Writ Petition in mutation matters. Here is the detailed legal position , the *reasoning* behind it, and the exceptions can be used to argue maintainability.

The General Rule: (Why Writ Does Not Lie)

Courts generally dismiss writs against mutation orders (under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or Section 35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) on the ground of alternative remedy.

1. Summary Nature: Mutation proceedings are “summary” in nature. They do not decide the title of the property; they only decide the person liable to pay land revenue.

2. Fiscal Purpose: The entry in the revenue record is for fiscal purposes (collection of revenue) and possession, not ownership.

3. Title Remains Open: Even if a mutation order is passed against your client, it does not extinguish their title. The aggrieved party has the alternative, efficacious remedy of filing a Declaratory Suit in a competent Civil Court to establish title.

The Exceptions (When Writ Does Lie)

If you want to file a Writ, you must bring your case within the exceptions carved out by the Judiciary (specifically the Lal Bachan ratio). A Writ of Certiorari is maintainable if:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: The authority passing the order had no jurisdiction to do so (e.g., a Naib Tehsildar deciding a complex title dispute they are not empowered to hear).

2. Violation of Natural Justice: The order was passed ex-parte without notice to the affected party, or without giving an opportunity of hearing.

3. Fraud or Misrepresentation: The mutation entry was obtained by fraud, fabrication of documents, or misrepresentation of facts.

4. Patent Illegality/Perversity: The order is so patently illegal that it shocks the conscience of the court, or relies on no evidence at all.

5. Constitutional Validity: If the mutation is based on a provision of law that is itself being challenged as unconstitutional.

6. Title by Statute: In rare cases where the entry itself confers title by virtue of a specific statutory provision (e.g., certain rights under UPZA & LR Act or U.P. Revenue Code), and not just a recording of an existing title.

Relevant Case Laws

Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue, U.P. (2002)

This is the locus classicus for the Allahabad High Court. The Full Bench held that while writs are generally not entertained due to the availability of a suit, they can be entertained if the order is without jurisdiction or if rights and title have already been decided by a competent court and the mutation authority ignores it.

Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur (1996) SCC

The Supreme Court held that, “Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.”

Strategic Approach for Your Draft

While drafting a petition against a mutation order:

Do not argue Title: Do not ask the Writ Court to decide who owns the land. They will relegate you to Civil Court.

Argue Procedure: Focus entirely on the process of the mutation order.

“The Tehsildar failed to issue notice…………”
“The order ignores the Stay Order of the Civil Court……….”
“The authority relied on a void document…………….”

Plead “Exceptions” Explicitly:

In your “Grounds” section, explicitly state: “The present writ is maintainable despite the alternative remedy because the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction / in violation of natural justice as per the ratio of Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue.”

By,

Rohit Nandan Shukla

Advocate, High Court

Allahabad

Related Post