R. Ravi vs Shri Yohannan Maithyu (Dead) Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8661 MP

                             1                  MP No.2647/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2023
              MISC. PETITION No. 2647 of 2023
BETWEEN:-

R. RAVI S/O P.K. RAMAN KUTTI, AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS,    OCCUPATION:   KRISHI   R/O  GRAM
ETAKHEDI TEHSIL BADI DISTRICT RAISEN
PRESENT R/O H.NO. EWS 01 N SECTOR NEAR ISRO
AYODHYA NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SHRI YOHANNAN MAITHYU (DEAD) THR. LRS.:

      1. SMT. MARIYAMMA W/O LATE SHRI
      YOHANNAN MAITHYU R/O GRAM UDADAMAU
      TOLA IMALIYA TEHSIL SULTANPUR DISTRICT
      RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    MANU MATHYU S/O LATE SHRI YOHANAN
      MATHYU PURVE RESIDENT GRAM UDADMAU
      R/O GRAM UDADAMAU TOLA IMALIYA
      TEHSIL  SULTANPUR   DISTRICT RAISEN
      (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    ROBIN MATHYU S/O LATE SHRI YOHANAN
      MATHYU OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH
      NATURAL   GUARDIAN   MOTHER    SMT.
      MARIYAMMA W/O LATE SHRI YOHANNAN
      MAITHYU R/O GRAM UDADAMAU TOLA
      IMALIYA TEHSIL SULTANPUR DISTRICT
                                    2                    MP No.2647/2023


     RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
     COLLECTOR, RAISEN DISTRICT RAISEN
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



5.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
     UPPER COMMISSIONER, BHOPAL DIVISION
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



6.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
     TEHSILDAR TEHSIL SULTANPUR, DISTRICT
     RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of Will purportedly executed by original owner Shri M. Vasudevan.

2. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the revenue authority has jurisdiction to entertain an application for mutation on the basis of Will or not?

3. The question is no more res integra.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 has held as under:

"6. 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. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, 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. 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."

5. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L. Venkatesh Reddy, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784 has held as under:

"8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the first

defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half-share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half-share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22) "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) '7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record 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 the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.'

22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7- 1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired."

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 has held as under :

"9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that 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. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition."

7. Since the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of genuineness of Will, therefore, no mistake has been committed by rejecting the application for mutation. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that if so advised, then he can file a civil suit for declaration of his title on the basis of Will.

8. Needless to mention that if such a suit is filed, then the trial Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with evidence which would come on record without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the finding recorded by any of the revenue authority.

9. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA 2023.06.16 11:07:02 +05'30'