Mutation Doesn't Create Or Extinguish Title; Writ Against Cancellation Of Mutation Not Maintainable: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that a mutation entry does not create or extinguish title over land and that where an order cancelling mutation is appealable under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the High Court would not entertain a writ petition. Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, observed, "Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish...
The Gauhati High Court has held that a mutation entry does not create or extinguish title over land and that where an order cancelling mutation is appealable under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the High Court would not entertain a writ petition.
Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, observed, "Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over land. A Mutation Order does not have any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is granted, to pay the land revenue."
The ruling came in a petition which was filed by the President and Secretary of the Gauripur Town Kaborsthan Committee challenging an order whereby the Circle Officer cancelled an earlier mutation order under which the disputed land had been mutated in the name of the Kaborsthan.
According to the petitioners, the original graveyard had become overcrowded and the Committee started using an adjacent plot as a burial ground. The adjacent land was thereafter mutated in favour of the Kaborsthan. Subsequently, private respondents claiming to be power of attorney holders of the landowners sought cancellation of the mutation. Both sides also instituted separate title suits concerning the same land.
Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the Circle Officer had acted as an appellate authority while cancelling the earlier mutation order and had adjudicated the title over the land without jurisdiction. They also claimed that the Committee had acquired title over the land by adverse possession and waqf by user.
The Court, however, did not accept the contention that cancellation of the mutation amounted to adjudication of title.
On the petitioners' claim of adverse possession, the Court observed, "Whether Gauripur Town Kaborsthan has acquired title over the subject-land by adverse possession or not can only be adjudicated by the competent civil court and a title suit in that connection is stated to be pending as on date, with no final outcome yet. Thus, at this stage, the contention of the petitioners regarding acquiring title over the subject-land does not call for any kind of observation in the present proceeding."
The State respondents contended that the earlier mutation order had been obtained by fraud and, therefore, could be recalled. The High Court observed, "To decide on the rival contentions as regards obtaining the order by fraud or not, a number of questions of facts would fall for determination, on the basis of evidence placed by the contesting parties, for which the writ proceeding is not the proper remedy."
The Court also noted that the impugned order had been passed after hearing both parties and that it was an appealable order.
In this regard, it observed, "The impugned Order dated 14.05.2026 besides being an inter-parte order, is an appealable order and against the Order, an appeal lies under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886."
Holding that the petitioners had an “efficacious, adequate and statutory remedy of appeal,” the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition while leaving it open to them to approach the appellate authority.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 3761/2026
Case Title: Kashem Ali Sk & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 104