2021 (9) TMI 1506 - SC - Indian Laws

Dispute regarding mutation entry in revenue records set aside - remedy available to Petitioner who is claiming rights/title on the basis of the will executed by the deceased Ananti Bai, once the will is disputed - HELD THAT - It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. 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 crystallized and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) by Lrs. 1997 (7) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT , 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. In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner 2007 (4) TMI 778 - SUPREME COURT , it is observed and held by this Court 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. Thus, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities directing to mutate the name of the Petitioner herein in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 and relegating the Petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystallize his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over mutation entry in revenue records based on a disputed will.
2. Validity of mutation entry without crystallizing rights through a civil court.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the mutation entry in revenue records based on a contested will. The petitioner sought to mutate his name in the records for certain lands based on a will allegedly executed by his maternal grandmother. The initial claim was that the grandmother had died on a specific date, but later, it was clarified that there was a typographical error in the date of death. The application for mutation was filed before the grandmother's actual demise, raising questions about the timing and validity of the claim.

The Nayab Tehsildar initially directed to mutate the petitioner's name based on the alleged will, but legal heirs of the grandmother appealed against this decision. Subsequently, the SDO and the Additional Commissioner overturned the Nayab Tehsildar's order, leading to the petitioner approaching the High Court. The High Court set aside the mutation order, stating that disputed wills should be resolved through a civil suit to establish rights before seeking mutation.

The Supreme Court reiterated established legal principles that mutation entries do not confer ownership rights and are solely for fiscal purposes. Citing past judgments, the Court emphasized that mutation entries do not determine property title, which falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the mutation order and directed the petitioner to pursue legal recourse to clarify rights based on the disputed will.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court highlighted the necessity of resolving disputes over property rights through the appropriate civil court rather than relying solely on mutation entries in revenue records.