Writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be used to challenge mutation orders: Uttarakhand High Court
Last Updated on August 5, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
In a recent judgment the Uttarakhand High Court has made it clear that the writ petition under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintainable against mutation proceedings. This ruling also illustrates that mutation orders are of limited practical use and reiterates that real property disputes belong in civil courts.
The case concerned a petitioner who wanted to challenge a mutation order which had proceeded in favour of the respondent through a will. The petitioner earlier applied for restoration of the records, which was declined and hence he sought help of the High Court. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while pronouncing the judgement, observed that mutation proceedings are mostly for the revenue records and don’t settle the ownership of the properties.
Justice Thapliyal was of the view that mutation orders are not finality of the disputes regarding ownership of a property. However, such issues should be dealt under civil law where people can contest a will or claim their legal entitlements. The judge pointed out that the petitioner had not disputed the will that was used in the mutation order nor had he started a civil suit on the basis of another will.
As the court pointed out, mutation proceedings are of a summary kind and involve no transfer of ownership rights; they are used for fiscal purposes only. This means that individuals should not use the writ petitions to address these orders but to follow the regular civil trial procedures instead.
This ruling is important for property related disputes in Uttarakhand as it sets the direction towards the right legal course for the same kind of issues and may help to avoid the institution of other cases in higher courts. It also redresses the nature and scope of mutation as a record keeping process and demarcates it from ownership disputes per se legal jurisdiction.
Additionally, the judgment describes the extent of Article 227 giving high courts the powers to monitor and rebuke lower courts and tribunals. The decision clarifies that the court’s supervisory power does not include mutation proceedings, which sets the constitutional limits on the role of the court.
Case Law: Ashutosh Sharma and Another Versus Madhav Samarpan Samiti, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1448 of 2024.
Written By: Amit Kumar Patra
