P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved