On Thursday, August 3, the Uttarakhand High Court ruled that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable against mutation proceedings. The court clarified that mutation proceedings are intended for fiscal purposes and do not confer any title over property.
Case Background
In this case, the petitioner was dissatisfied with the rejection of their Restoration Application regarding a mutation carried out by the Revenue Authority based on a Will presented by the respondent.
Court’s Observation
The bench, led by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, noted that if the mutation proceedings initiated by the respondent had concluded and there was a subsequent Will, the petitioner’s only remedy was to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner could challenge the Will dated October 26, 1995, on which the mutation application was based, or file a regular suit to claim title over the property based on the subsequent Will.
Key Points from the Ruling
The court emphasized that intervening by moving an application to recall the order in a mutation proceeding was unwarranted. The petitioners neither challenged the Will dated October 26, 1995, nor filed any regular suit claiming title over the property pursuant to a subsequent Will. The court reiterated that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not confer any title over property, serving only fiscal purposes.
