ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. M. Y. Lone, learned counsel for the petitioners/ appellants, and Mr. D. C. Raina, learned AG who is assisted by Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA.

2. Impugned in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 15.7.2021 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No. 982/2020 titled Abdul Majeed Dar and another versus Union Territory of J&K and others.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/ appellants is that the writ court has completely failed to consider that the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the SDM Chadoora, Budgam, was completely without jurisdiction, and secondly that the order was passed behind the back of the petitioners/appellants. Apart from the above contentions, it is also alleged that there was a proper exchange of land and, therefore, the orders of mutation were not liable to be set aside that too without holding a proper inquiry in accordance with the rules.

4. The respondents have submitted that there was no valid exchange of land. The petitioners/appellants despite alleged exchange retained their land and never parted with it and, thus, have managed the mutation entries which have been rightly set aside by the SDM who is fully authorized to pass the said order. The petitioners/appellants directly approached the High Court by means of the writ petition so as to challenge the above order without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal provided under section 11 of the J&K Land Revenue Act. The aforesaid order was passed after due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/appellants and they have even participated in the proceedings.

5. Before dealing with the respective contentions of the parties, it is appropriate to state in brief the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition.

6. The petitioners/appellants allege that in exchange of 19 marlas of their proprietary land falling under survey Nos. 745 and 334 in village Ranger, Chadoora, district Budgam, they have obtained 9 marlas of kahcharie land. On the basis of the said exchange, mutation numbers 110 and 111 were carried out by the Revenue department in the name of the petitioners/appellants. However, the SDM by the impugned order dated 25.6.2020 has ordered for setting aside the aforesaid mutation entries, thus restoring back the land as the kahcharie land, and the land under survey Nos. 745 and 334 of the petitioners/appellants in their own name.

7. A reading of the order of the SDM dated 25.6.2020 indicates that the mutation entries were set aside as it was found that there was no valid exchange inasmuch as there was no approval to it by the competent authority and that despite the alleged exchange, the petitioners/appellants never parted with their land and remained in its occupation.

8. It is pertinent to mention that the dispute raised in the writ petition from which this appeal arises, was with regard to the mutation entries.

9. It is settled law that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and are not documents of title. The mutation neither extinguishes nor confers rights in the immovable property and that the ultimate title, if necessary, is to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. The courts have repeatedly laid down that as mutation entries are not documents of title, any entry, even if incorrectly made, would not affect the rights and titles of the parties over the land and, as such, ordinarily such change in entries/mutation would not be amenable to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court.

10. In Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur, AIR 1996 SC 2823, the Apex Court held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person in whose favour the mutation is entered, to pay the land revenue. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions subsequent to the above one, and the latest appears to be that in the case of Suman Verma Vs. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4800,