The judgements are related to property mutation or mutation in revenue records, which is the practice of changing the title entry in local records after it has been transferred to the name of a new owner. Each time the owner of property changes, the mutation in revenue records must take place. For example, after a property is registered in the name of a new buyer, the property mutation process must be started.
When a buyer completes the land-purchase process, it is their obligation to ensure that the new information is recorded in the revenue records. The local government can use land and property mutation to determine the amount of property tax liability and charge it accordingly.
Does mutation entry in the revenue record confer any right, title, or interest in favor of any person?
Can mutation in revenue record entries be challenged on the ground that they are fraudulent or surreptitious?
Does mutation of property in revenue records create a title or presumptive title in favor of any person?
The Supreme Court has held that mutation entries in revenue records are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer any right, title, or interest in the favor of any person.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that even though the accuracy of the entries made in the revenue records cannot be challenged, they can be challenged on the ground that it was made in a fraudulent or surreptitious manner.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that a land mutation in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title to land, nor does it have any presumption value on the title, and it simply allows the person in whose favor the mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
Dharam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs vs Prem Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. on 5 February, 2019
Author: A Bhushan
Bench: K Joseph, A Bhushan
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2009
DHARAM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. ...APPELLANTS
Vs.
PREM SINGH (D) THR. LRS. ...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of High Court of Uttarakhand by the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in suit No. 9 of 1992. The High Court by its judgment has allowed the first appeal filed by the defendants-respondents setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1996 of the District Judge in Suit No. 9 of 1992.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by noticed for deciding this appeal are: DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.02.05 12:20:59 IST Reason:
2.1 One Badri Aswal was the owner of agricultural land in Khata/Khatauni No. 46 of Village Gyansu, District Uttar Kashi (earlier part of Tehri Garhwal) measuring a total of 62 Nali and 1 muthi. The said Badri had no issue. He married one Tulsa Devi. It is claimed that Tulsa Devi adopted one Bhopalu as her son after death of her husband but Bhopalu’s name could never be mutated in the Revenue records. Tulsa Devi died much before independence. One Amar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of appellants claimed to be looking after the affairs of Bhopalu and paying land revenue on his behalf. Bhopalu also died before independence and after death of Bhopalu, Amar Singh continued to be in possession of land belonging to Tulsa Devi. Tulsa Devi’s name continued in revenue records. Amar Singh claimed to be in possession of the land. According to law as was in force in Tehri Garhwal at that time that when a tenant/owner dies without an heir, the land is escheated to State. For the reason, Tulsa Devi died without an heir, the entire land was treated to be State property.
2.2 The Collector, Tehri Garhwal passed an order on 17.04.1956 and ordered that property of Tulsa Devi be got released from the possession of Amar Singh. However, Amar Singh was allowed to remain in possession of the land where his house, Gaushala and Sagwara was situated with the condition that total areas shall not exceed 4 Nali. A document was written on 14.05.1956 (paper No.23Gha/2) which recorded that Amar Singh has handed over possession of the entire land of Tulsa Devi except 4 Nali 1 muthi. The plots covering that area of 4 Nali and 1 muthi was also mentioned in the said document. The Government required land for construction of buildings for District Uttar Kashi, with regard to which land in Village Gyansu was acquired. Instead of paying compensation to tenure holders whose land was acquired, the Government ordered to give land in exchange of the land, which earlier was recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, which stood escheated to the State. An exchange document was recorded in this context where various plots were given in exchange to different tenant holders whose land was acquired. The record operations in the village in question continued from 1952 to 1963 (as has been noted by the High Court). 2.3 The name of Amar Singh was shown in possession with regard to few plots, which were the plots recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi. The A.R.O. passed an order dated 06.05.1961 directing that name of Amar Singh, who was recorded in possession be deleted. The said order was based on a report that name of Amar Singh has been recorded surreptitiously by the record officials. 2.4 In area where the land in question was situated, the Kumaon and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “1960 Act”) was enforced. In accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Act, Section 10 provides that every person who on the date immediately preceding the appointed date was recorded as occupants of land held by a hissedar or a khaikar was held to be asamis. The Patwari of the village referring to a Government order dated 19.12.1973 made an entry in Khata/Khatauni firstly in the Fasli year 1979-1985 making entries as per the above Government order. The status of asamis w.e.f. 01.01.1974 and right of sirdar of Khasra No. 641, 719 and 697 was entered against the name of Amar Singh by the Patwari. Amar Singh died in or about the Year 1985. The appellants, who are sons of Lt. Amar Singh filed Civil Suit No. 9 of 1992 against the defendants-respondents praying for permanent injunction. Following reliefs were claimed in para No. 11 of the plaint:-
a) to pass a permanent injunction restraining the defendant his family members, agents and labourers from forceful, fraudulent interference in the land in Khata Khatoni No.195/35-K field No.719 admeasuring 2 Nali, 11 Muthi land of village Gyansu, Patti Barahat, Uttarkashi;
b) the cost of the case be awarded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.5 The case of the plaintiff was that father of plaintiff got sirdari rights w.e.f. 01.01.1974. Father of the plaintiffs remained in possession till his death and thereafter the appellants are in possession of plot No. 719 area – 2 Nali and 1 muthi on which they have shown mustard crops. It was pleaded that on 27.11.1991, the defendants damaged the mustard crops. Consequently, the suit was filed.
2.6 The defendants in their written statements denied the plaint allegations. Defendants’ case was that plot No. 719 and other plots were recorded in the name of Tulsa Devi, who died before the present settlement leaving no heir, therefore, the properties of Tulsa Devi escheated to State and vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1956-57, State needed the properties in Mauza Barahat for construction of PWD houses, the Government acquired property but instead of paying compensation, the owners were given plots of Tulsa Devi in exchange. The grandfather of defendant Mor Singh was Maurusidar, who was owner of plot No. 611 area of 3 Nali 2 muthi, which was acquired by the State and in exchange of said plots Mor Singh was given plot Nos. 366,335, 336 and 364 corresponding to new Plot Nos. 641, 719 and 657. After the death of Mor Singh, partition took place and the plots came in the kura of Narain Singh, father of the defendants.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
After a property has been transferred or sold, the process of mutation is used to register the change or transfer in the title of ownership. When a mutation is made, it is documented in the land revenue department, which aids authorities in determining the tax burden. The process of mutation must be given effect each time a change or transfer of ownership takes place.
While there is no central legislature that governs the process, there does exist a generic procedure for the same with minor intricacies that differ from state to state.
It is critical that you choose an experienced property lawyer who is familiar with the complexities of the legal procedures involved in property partition. You can also seek free legal advice on your case from professional property lawyers through LawRato's Free Legal Advice program. As stated above, most matters of mutation in revenue records require a complex legal procedure and a lawyer well-versed in property laws can surely help you.