Mutation proceedings are typically non-conclusive regarding title, emphasizing that the authority of civil courts prevails in determining ownership based on evidence.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI th ON THE 10 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2601 of 2025 YUSUF AND OTHERS Versus KAID JOHAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rishiraj Trivedi - Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Swati Ukhale - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Addl. Advocate General for the respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is arising out of the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 10734/2020 whereby the orders dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Neemuch; 10.06.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Manasa, District Neemuch and; 18.03.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division have been set aside.

02. The dispute is regarding mutation and share in respect of the agricultural land between the legal heirs of late Abbas Ali Bohra. Appellants Signature Not Verified are the legal heirs of late Imdad Ali (one of the son of late Abbas Ali) and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the son of late Abbas Ali. The legal heirs of late Muhammad Ali (second son of late Abbas Ali) are formal parties in the litigation filed before the Revenue Authorities as well as the writ Court.

Rest of the legal heirs are daughters.

03. Mainly the mutation dispute has been decided between the appellants and the writ petitioner. Apart from that the appellants have already approached the civil Court seeking partition of the entire land owned by late Abbas Ali. The writ petitioner came up with a Will of late Abbas Ali before the writ Court which is also a subject matter of the pending civil suit. Kaid Johar-writ petitioner approached the Tehsildar on 12.01.2006 after the death of his father Abbas Ali seeking mutation in his name. The Tehsildar passed an order of mutation on 22.03.2006. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order before the Sub Divisional Officer in the year 2018 along with an application for condonation of delay. By a detailed order dated 26.03.2019, the SDO has condoned the delay and thereafter allowed the appeal. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed. After hearing both the parties, the writ Court has passed the detailed and speaking order dated 13.08.2025 giving the finding that the appellants had knowledge about the mutation which took place in the year 2006 and that the SDO has wrongly condoned the delay, therefore the orders were set aside. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

Signature Not Verified

04. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

05. It is settled law that the mutation proceedings are only a revenue proceeding and does not confer any right as held by the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 802. The operative part of the order reads as under :

“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., (20