12 Sep 2022 4:30 AM GMT
The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title.The observation came from Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari:"Thus, mutation of name in respect of agricultural land does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the...
The Uttarakhand High Court has reiterated that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title.
The observation came from Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari:
"Thus, mutation of name in respect of agricultural land does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay land revenue. The proceedings under Section 34/35 of Land Revenue Act 1901 are summary in nature, which are subject to provision contained in Section 40-A of the said Act."
Reliance was placed on Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court held that mutation entry in the revenue record is only for fiscal purposes and does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person.
Petitioner was aggrieved by order of Tehsildar allowing the application filed by Respondent nos. 1 & 2 seeking mutation of their name in a property in place of petitioner, in revenue records, on the strength of a sale deed alleged to have been executed in their favour. Petitioner's restoration application was rejected by the Tehsildar and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Assistant Collector. Hence, the petitioner moved before High Court.
Significantly, the petitioner had also filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed contending that he had not executed any sale deed in favour of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and the sale deed was prepared by trick photography. The said suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) and petitioner's Appeal is pending before District Judge, Haridwar.
Mutation of name in respect of agricultural land in revenue records is governed by U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act provides that the power to record a change under clause (b) shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title. Similar stipulation is made in proviso to Section 39 (2) of the said Act. Section 40-A of the said Act provides that order of mutation shall not come in the way of any party if he approaches a competent court for declaration of his right.
Court noted that in the present case, the mutation application filed by respondents was allowed by Tehsildar. The Appellate as well as Revisional Authority has affirmed the order passed by Tehsildar, whereby he ordered mutation of names of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, based on the sale deeds executed in their favour.
It was observed by the court that the revenue authority while considering mutation application cannot go into the validity of sale deed and such question can only be decided by a competent Court of law.
"It is apparent that mutation proceedings are summary in nature, which are subject to finding recorded in a regular suit. Since the question of title cannot be gone in summary proceedings, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Tehsildar, as affirmed by Assistant Collector and Additional Commissioner, Garhwal. Thus, there is no scope of interference," the High Court held and dismissed the petition.
Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Utt) 34
Click Here To Read/Download Order