AI Overview...
-
Mutation Application & Adverse Claims - Applications claiming modifications to revenue records by persons with adverse interests are generally governed by specific provisions under revenue laws. In Bihar, mutation claims by persons with totally adverse interests are not decided beyond the scope of the Act, and mutation does not confer or extinguish rights (Section 3-14; Mahabir Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand). Similarly, in Tamil Nadu, the competent authority for mutation modifications is the Tashildar under Section 10, with certain rules governing the validity of such entries and cancellations (T. R. Dinakaran VS Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai - Madras).
-
Authority & Procedure for Mutation - Revenue authorities like Tashildar, RDO, or Revenue Divisional Officer are empowered to process mutation applications, but their decisions are limited to recording facts; they do not determine ownership rights. The mutation process is primarily administrative, and entries are presumed true but do not establish ownership or rights (T. R. Dinakaran VS Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai - Madras, Ram Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Sudha Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand).
-
Adverse Findings & Record Challenges - Entries challenged through applications or appeals can be contested before revenue tribunals or courts. Adverse findings by revenue officials, such as the Extra Aval Karkun, can be challenged, but these do not automatically affect ownership rights unless legally established (DESAI NAVINKANT KESARLAL VS PRABHAT KABHAI - Gujarat).
-
Legal Effect of Revenue Entries - Revenue entries are considered presumptive and are not conclusive proof of ownership. Courts have consistently held that mutation does not confer or extinguish rights but merely records facts for administrative purposes (Mahabir Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Ram Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Sudha Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand). The primary role of revenue records is to serve as evidence of possession and administrative record-keeping.
-
Adverse Possession & Ownership - Claimants alleging adverse possession must prove the essential ingredients, including continuous possession and hostility, to establish ownership rights. Courts recognize that adverse possession can lead to ownership if proven, but revenue entries alone do not suffice (Ram Dhari VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana).
-
Legal Limitations & Proceedings - Claims regarding revenue record entries must be within prescribed limitation periods. Courts examine whether the claimant's assertion of ownership is within time and supported by legal evidence, not solely by revenue entries (Tulsan VS Sahib Ram Chet Ram - Punjab and Haryana).
Analysis and Conclusion:
Mutations in revenue records are administrative acts that record possession or claims but do not determine ownership rights. Applications to modify these entries by persons with adverse interests are subject to specific procedures and limitations. Courts have reaffirmed that revenue entries are presumptive and cannot be used as conclusive proof of ownership or rights. Challenges to such entries can be made through legal proceedings, but ownership rights are only established through substantive evidence like adverse possession, legal title, or court judgments. Therefore, for property owners seeking to modify or contest revenue entries, the focus should be on proving substantive ownership rights rather than relying solely on mutation records.
References:
- Mahabir Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, T. R. Dinakaran VS Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai - Madras, DESAI NAVINKANT KESARLAL VS PRABHAT KABHAI - Gujarat, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. VS Sundari Devi - Himachal Pradesh, Ram Kumar Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Ram Dhari VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, K. Ranga Raju VS Joint Collector – II, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - Telangana, Habeeb Yahiya VS Government Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh, Sudha Singh VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand, Tulsan VS Sahib Ram Chet Ram - Punjab and Haryana
Search Results for "Application to Modify Mutation Entries in Revenue Records Adverse to Property Owners"
2012 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1249 • India - Jharkhand
JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA
to be claimed by a person having totally adverse interest to person recorded in revenue record and application by such person with ... 1973---Sections 3 to 14—Anchal Adhikari has no jurisdiction to decide adverse claim other than provided under the Act-mutation cant ... (Para 36) ... (B)Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, ... From the scheme of the above provisions it is clear that the application for mutation, obvi....
2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 1597 • India - Madras
K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU
reading under provisions of Act and Rules, Tashildar is the competent authority under Section 10 for modifications of the relevant entries ... otherwise not available to him under the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 - When petitioner and respondent equally claim title over property ... Rule 12, 14 and 15 - Cancellation of patta of writ petitioner by RDO - Validity - Question whether the first respondent as the Revenue ... already recorded and existing in the various Revenue Records. ... However, th....
1967 0 Supreme(Guj) 28 • India - Gujarat
P.N.BHAGWATI, N.K.VAKIL
adverse finding of the Extra Aval Karkun. ... of rights – On behalf of the petitioners this entry made in the record of rights was challenged by an application – This application ... Bombay Land Revenue Code – Rule 108 (6) – Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act 1952 –Bombay Land Tenure Abolition ... Even thereafter they had the further opportunity before the Revenue Tribunal to challenge the adverse finding of the Extra Aval Karkun. ... There the entry not only in the #....
2018 0 Supreme(HP) 593 • India - Himachal Pradesh
CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
defendants”) for declaration and possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the property ... Whether the mutation of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and void and has no effect upon the right, title ... PW-4, Shri Mani Ram, Kanungo (Records) in the office of S.D.O. ... No doubt presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries, however, revenue entries are also paradise of the pa....
2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 482 • India - Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
is in possession of land gives the government revenue which is collected by mutation , mutation neither confers nor extinguishes ... the rights of any parties - the rights and title of the person cannot be seen by revenue authorities in deciding the mutation case ... ... Mutation Laws - This matter deals in mutation order - a person who ... From the scheme of the above provisions it is clear that the application for mutation, obvio....
1996 0 Supreme(P&H) 1193 • India - Punjab and Haryana
R.L.ANAND
- SECTION 27 - ADVERSE POSSESSION - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - REVENUE ENTRIES - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSION OF OWNERSHIP ... The plaintiffs alleged that they had been cultivating the land without paying rent and had become owners by adverse possession. ... The State of Haryana acquired ownership of the land by way of escheat, as the original owners had died without leaving any legal ... The plaintiffs have become the owners and in possession of the suit....
2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 277 • India - Telangana
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, T.VINOD KUMAR
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 - Rule 9 - Competent authority - Revenue Records - Government lands - Order of ... of their names in the revenue record by the respondents - Since the title of State of Telangana has been set up in the additional ... surplus land holders under said Act by issuing a notification under Section 10(3) of said Act - Contention of petitioners that said property ... It is settled law that mutation of land in revenue #HL_STAR....
2003 0 Supreme(AP) 730 • India - Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S.RAO
of property or claim ownership by reason of adverse possession or otherwise it is for them to approach Wakf Tribunal or Revenue ... Officer/revenue divisional Officer/joint Collector or appropriate authority to make necessary entries in record of rights and also ... Officer was directed to correct entries showing as owner and possessor of land - If petitioners or respondents are in possession ... If the petitioners or respondents 3 to 5 are in posses....
2018 0 Supreme(Jhk) 905 • India - Jharkhand
RAJESH SHANKAR
Finding of the Court: The court found that the mutation does not confer or extinguish right and title, and revenue ... State of Jharkhand & Others - Section 5 of the Act of 1973 - Mutation does not confer or extinguish right and title - Revenue authorities ... issuance Ratio Decidendi: Mutation does not confer or extinguish right and title, and revenue authorities are not empowered ... From the scheme of the above provisions it is clear that the application for #HL_....
1965 0 Supreme(P&H) 117 • India - Punjab and Haryana
I.D.DUA, R.S.NARULA
Whether the claim of the plaintiff for a declaration regarding entries in the revenue record is within limitation? 10. ... Fact of the Case: Mata Din, the owner of the property in question, made a will giving one-third each to his two brothers ... The Revenue Officer decided the question of title in those partition proceedings. ... The plaintiffs suit for a declaration regarding entries in the revenue records was held within limit....
Filter by Legal Phrase
