Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Any Right, Title Or Interest In Favour Of Any Person: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
8 Sep 2021 1:45 PM GMT
Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Any Right, Title Or Interest In Favour Of Any Person: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed 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."If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach...

The Supreme Court observed 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.

"If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed.

In this case, the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, on the basis of the a will produced by him. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a petition filed by some parties, set aside the order and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. The petitioner therefore filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court

'5..Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made", the bench observed.

The court referred to the judgment in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D)  (1997) 7 SCC 137.

"Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.", the Court said.

The bench further noted that in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it was held that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights.

"Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court.", it noted.

The court noticed that similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70. 7. In vi

 Upholding the High Court judgment, the bench dismissed the Special Leave Petition.


Case: Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; SLP(C) 13146/2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 430
Coram: Justice MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose
Counsel: Adv Rajesh Inamdar for petitioner, Adv G.V. Chandrasekar for respondent

Click here to Read/Download Order



Next Story