Tehsildar Lacks Jurisdiction to Grant Status Quo Orders in Mutation Proceedings Under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act

The name of Respondent No. 1 (Sarita) was recorded in the revenue records under Section 33A of the Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act, 1901.

The Petitioner, Keshav Kumar Divedi, subsequently filed a report under Section 34 of the same Act before the Tehsildar, claiming possession of the land based on a registered will dated 17.12.2021.

On 15.03.2023, the Tehsildar passed an interim order to maintain status quo.

Respondent No. 1 challenged this before the Additional Collector in revision under Section 219 of the Act, arguing the Tehsildar exceeded his jurisdiction.

On 20.04.2025, the Additional Collector stayed the status quo order, observing it was "completely without jurisdiction" under Section 34.

The Petitioner challenged the Additional Collector's stay order via this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Land Revenue Act, 1901, which pertains to the reporting of succession or transfer of possession for the purpose of making necessary corrections in revenue entries based on possession.

Section 33A of the Act regarding existing revenue entries.

The principle that summary revenue proceedings under Section 34 do not empower a Tehsildar to issue injunctive orders like status quo, as such powers vest in civil courts where regular suits for permanent injunction are filed.

The Court examined the Petitioner’s argument that Section 34 mandates corrections based on possession, which allegedly justifies a status quo order.

The Court concurred with the Standing Counsel’s submission that Section 34 proceedings are summary in nature and do not grant the Tehsildar the power to maintain status quo over land where entries already exist under Section 33A.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had already availed himself of the appropriate civil remedy by filing a regular suit for permanent injunction, which remains the proper forum for such relief.

The Additional Collector's finding—that the Tehsildar’s order was without jurisdiction—was upheld as legally sound.

The Court clarified that the dismissal does not prejudice the Petitioner’s rights in his pending civil suit.

The Court directed the Tehsildar to expedite and conclude the matter within three months from the production of the certified order, without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.