SC: Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Prelims Relaxation Cannot Claim an Unreserved Seat  ||  SC: Public Sector Enterprises Cannot Act Against Retired Employees Without Clear Rules  ||  Supreme Court: Single FIR is Permissible in Mass Cheating Cases Arising From One Conspiracy  ||  SC: Courts Cannot Take Cognizance of Time-Barred Cheque Bounce Cases Without Condoning Delay  ||  SC: Exoneration in Disciplinary Proceedings Does Not Always Bar Criminal Prosecution  ||  SC: Judge Cannot Be Presumed Biased Merely Because a Litigant’s Relative Is Police or Court Staff  ||  Delhi HC: Delays From Medical Review Cannot Justify Ante-Dated Seniority For BSF Candidates  ||  Allahabad HC: Being ‘Proclaimed Offender’ Does Not Completely Bar Grant of Anticipatory Bail  ||  Delhi HC: Abortion by a Married Woman For Marital Discord is Legal under The MTP Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Fraud Has No Time Limit and Directors Cannot Use Delay As a Defense    

Jitendra Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - (Supreme Court) (06 Sep 2021)

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

MANU/SCOR/28181/2021

Property

The original Respondent No.6 has preferred the present special leave petition feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, directing to mutate the name of the Petitioner herein in the revenue records, which was sought to be mutated on the basis of the will.

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 20th May, 1998 executed by Ananti Bai. Even, according to the Petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27th August, 2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9th August, 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.

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 law is very clear.

In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., 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.

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 20th May, 1998 and relegating the Petitioner to approach the appropriate court to crystalise his rights on the basis of the alleged will dated 20th May, 1998. Petition dismissed.

Tags : MUTATION   REVENUE RECORDS   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved