The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that a mutation entry in a revenue record is only for fiscal purposes and does not confer any right, title, or interest in a person. (Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Facts of the 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.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench taking note of the submission of the Parties noted, “It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. 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 crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.”
The bench observed, “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 court referring to the judgment in the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) (1997) 7 SCC 137 said, "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 bench further noted that in the case of 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.
The bench noted, "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."
The bench upholding the judgment passed by the High Court and dismissing the Special Leave Petition remarked, “In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, 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 crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
