IMPORTANT POINT
Entry in revenue records or mutation does not confer title; title must be established through a declaratory suit in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

H.S. Thankhiew, J. - This application under Rule 6 of the Meghalaya High Court Jurisdiction over District Council Court, Order 2013 has been preferred against the order dated 12.06.2018, passed by the Learned Court of the Judge, District Council Court, Garo Hills, Tura in M.A No. 1 of 2017. The petitioner herein who belongs to the Koch Community of Meghalaya is aggrieved with the judgment and order of the Learned Judge, District Council Court who had held that a finding of the Revenue Authority was final in a matter concerning title.

2. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of one (L) Smt. Rayeswari Koch who was an owner of a plot of land measuring over 5 big has covered by periodic patta No. 06 (old) New 155, with Registration No. 133, issued by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC). On the death of Rayeswari Koch, the learned counsel submits, when the petitioner along with the sisters of (L) Rayeswari Koch had approached the Office of the Revenue Officer, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) to get her name mutated in the patta, they were shocked to discover that the said plot of land had already been mutated in the name of the respondent. Counsel submits that the petitioner then sought to cancel the mutation by way of an application in 2006, but the Revenue Officer rejected their application for cancellation of mutation by order dated 07.09.2006. Though, an appeal was preferred against the rejection order, but the same was dismissed by the appellate revenue authority by order dated 22.10.2008.

3. Learned counsel submits that as the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) had adopted the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, wherein, it is provided that parties could approach the Civil Court to prove title if aggrieved by a mutation order, the petitioner then filed a suit before the Village Court which was registered as Jeldopara Village Court E.No.III-27 vide L.C. No.8. The counsel submits that the Village Court after considering the matter and examining witnesses by the application of Koch customary laws, decided the case in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 03.11.2009, and also passed a decree accordingly. Thereafter, he submits an appeal was preferred by the respondents under Rule 19 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC)-Administration of Justice Rules, 1953 before the Court of the Judicial Officer, GHADC who by order dated 29.11.2016, in Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2009, upheld the order of the Village Court, after taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter.

4. Learned counsel submits that the matter was thereafter, again agitated in appeal by the respondents, before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, Tura which was numbered as M.A. No. 1 of 2017, and that the learned Judge after hearing the parties by order dated 12.06.2018, allowed the Appeal holding that the finding of the Revenue Authorities cannot be disturbed and that in the circumstances the question of title cannot be agitated. Learned counsel submits that the Court below further directed the Revenue Authority to restore the patta of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 12.06.2018, is not tenable in law, inasmuch as, it has extinguished the rights to civil remedy of the petitioner, and that had failed to appreciate that the Revenue Court is not a competent court to decide title which is a subject matter of Civil Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned court below failed to recognize the fact that an entry into the revenue records does not confer title, and as such, has erred in law in passing the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the judgment of Shri. Goya Prasad Khemani vs. The Assam Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in (1982) 1 GLR 130, wherein, it has been held that Revenue Authorities and the Board of Revenue had no j