Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS/ 1530/ 2024

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate for the

petitioner.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General

assisted by Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder

for the State.

2. Petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand in Revision No. 11 of 2022-23. He has also challenged order dated 19.10.2022, passed by Assistant Collector, 1^st Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar in Appeal No. 1 of 2021 and order dated 22.06.2015 passed by Tehsildar, Haridwar in Suit No. 112 of 1986. The judgment and orders impugned herein have been passed in mutation

proceedings

3. Law is well settled that mutation of name in review record neither creates nor extinguishes title. Mutation is done for fiscal purposes only. In the case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223, Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the legal position in the following

words:

“…Mutation of a property in the revenue

record does not create or extinguishes title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is

ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.”

4. In the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“6. …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.

7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, 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. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

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,