Uttarakhand High Court
Adesh Kumar Sharma vs Sh. Vinod Singh Rawat & Others on 1 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1101 of 2025
Adesh Kumar Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Vinod Singh Rawat & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Judgments and orders impugned in this writ
petition were passed in mutation proceedings.
According to petitioner, his father along with
respondent no. 2 and one Shri Babu Lal Sharma
(husband of respondent no. 3) jointly purchased land
bearing Khasra No. 73-Ka, ad measuring 0.0730
hectare and Khasra No. 91-Kha, ad measuring
0.0740, total 0.1470 hectare, situate in Village
Bishangarh, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh,
District Dehradun from one Mehar Singh, vide sale
deed dated 7.12.1989; name of all the purchasers
were mutated in the revenue records; respondent no.
2 and 3 sold their share in the land, jointly purchased
with petitioner's father (Babu Lal Sharma), to
respondent no. 1 vide sale deed dated 17.4.2006;
after purchasing the share of respondent no. 2 and 3,
respondent no. 1 applied for mutation of his name in
the revenue record by moving an application under
Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, which was allowed
by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dated 13.6.2008.
Petitioner sought recall of the order dated 13.6.2008
by contending that since he is one of the co-owner of
2025:UHC:3408
the land with respondent no. 2 and 3, who sold out
the land in favour of respondent no. 1, therefore he
has a right of hearing in the matter. Application for
recall, made by petitioner, was dismissed by
Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dated 10.4.2012.
Petitioner thereafter filed appeal against Tehsildar's
order, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, 1st
Class, Rishikesh vide judgment dated 15.6.2016.
Petitioner thereafter filed Revision No. 23 of 2015-16,
which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner,
Garhwal vide judgment dated 25.11.2024. Thus
feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition.
2. This Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgments and orders,
passed by revenue authorities in mutation
proceedings. It is common knowledge that mutation
of name in revenue records is done for fiscal
purposes, i.e. for collection of land revenue, and
mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title. In the
case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, reported in (1996) 6
SCC 223, Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the legal
position in the following words:
"...Mutation of a property in the revenue
record does not create or extinguishes 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."
2025:UHC:3408
3. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Suraj Bhan & Others v. Financial Commissioner &
Others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186, has held as
under:
"9. There is an additional reason as to why
we need to 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."
4. In the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others, reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 802, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"6. ...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.
2025:UHC:3408
7. 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.
8. 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. Section 40-A of Land Revenue Act reads as
under:
"40-A. Saving as to title suits.--No order
passed under Section 33, Section 35,
Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or
Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent
2025:UHC:3408
court for relief on the basis of a right in a
holding."
6. Thus it is abundantly clear that question of
title cannot be decided in mutation proceedings and
the remedy for resolving title disputes is to file a
regular suit in a competent court. Thus the revenue
authorities were justified in rejecting the challenge
thrown by petitioner to the mutation order, passed in
favour of respondent no. 1. If petitioner has any
grievance, he is always at liberty to approach
competent court of law by filing suit for declaration of
his title or cancellation of sale deed executed in
favour of respondent no. 1.
7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
1.5.2025
Pr
PRABODH Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af
KUMAR
3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588
052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.05.03 15:20:04 +05'30'
