Revenue mutation entries require statutory proof, and an alternative civil suit will not bar Article 226 relief where it is not efficacious.

Revenue mutations based on the Farman-i-Shahi were invalid because the authorities did not first verify that the lands pertained to or were attached to the deras. The existing revenue records showed the petitioners as owners, and Section 37 of the Land Revenue Act required proof, admission, agreement of interested parties, or a binding order before entries in records of rights could be varied; none existed, so the mutation orders were illegal and liable to be quashed against the revenue authority. The High Court also held that an alternative civil suit was not an adequate and efficacious remedy in the circumstances, so the Article 226 petitions were maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue authorities were justified in mutating the lands in favour of the deras on the basis of the Farman-i-Shahi without first ascertaining that the lands pertained to or were attached to the deras. (ii) Whether the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue authorities were justified in mutating the lands in favour of the deras on the basis of the Farman-i-Shahi without first ascertaining that the lands pertained to or were attached to the deras.

Analysis: The Farman applied only to lands pertaining to or attached to deras and not to lands standing in the names of private individuals without any indication that they were mahants or managers of the institutions. The revenue entries before mutation showed the petitioners as owners, and there was no material before the revenue authorities to establish that the lands fell within the scope of the Farman. Under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Act, entries in records of rights could not be varied except on proof or admission of the relevant facts, agreement of interested parties, or by a binding decree or order. None of those conditions existed, and no enquiry was made before sanctioning the mutations.

Conclusion: The mutations and the orders sanctioning them were illegal and liable to be quashed against the revenue authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary, and the existence of another remedy may justify refusal only where that remedy is specific, adequate, and efficacious in the circumstances. The Court treated the adequacy of the civil suit remedy as the real question and held that, given the nature of the dispute, the public importance involved, and the hardship of forcing the petitioners into civil litigation, the alternative remedy was not a sufficient ground to refuse relief. The revenue mutations did not themselves divest title, but the wrongful entries were capable of causing serious prejudice.

Conclusion: The petitions were maintainable and were not to be rejected on the ground of an alternative civil remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only against the revenue authority that sanctioned the mutations, while the Government was not subjected to relief. The petitions were therefore allowed in part, with the impugned mutation orders quashed and prohibition issued against giving them effect.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue entries cannot be altered under a general governmental direction unless the statutory conditions for mutation are satisfied, and the existence of a civil suit does not bar relief under Article 226 where that remedy is not shown to be an adequate and efficacious substitute in the circumstances.

---