Pet it ioner v. Sh. Vinod Singh Rawat Ot hers

respondent no. 2 and one Shri Babu Lal Sharm a ( husband of respondent no. 3) j oint ly purchased land bearing Khasra No. 73- Ka, ad m easuring 0.0730 hect are and Khasra No. 91- Kha, ad m easuring

0.0740, t ot al 0.1470 hect are, sit uat e in Village Bishangarh, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, Dist rict Dehradun from one Mehar Singh, vide sale deed dat ed 7.12.1989; nam e of all t he purchasers were m ut at ed in t he revenue records; respondent no. 2 and 3 sold t heir share in t he land, j oint ly purchased wit h pet it ioner’s fat her ( Babu Lal Sharm a) , t o respondent no. 1 vide sale deed dat ed 17.4.2006; aft er purchasing t he share of respondent no. 2 and 3, respondent no. 1 applied for m ut at ion of his nam e in t he revenue record by m oving an applicat ion under Sect ion 34 of Land Revenue Act , which was allowed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dat ed 13.6.2008. Pet it ioner sought recall of t he order dat ed 13.6.2008 by cont ending t hat since he is one of t he co- owner of 1 t he land wit h respondent no. 2 and 3, who sold out t he land in favour of respondent no. 1, t herefore he has a right of hearing in t he m at t er. Applicat ion for recall, m ade by pet it ioner, was dism issed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dat ed 10.4.2012. Pet it ioner t hereaft er filed appeal against Tehsildar’s order, which was dism issed by Assist ant Collect or, 1 st Class, Rishikesh vide j udgm ent dat ed 15.6.2016. Pet it ioner t hereaft er filed Revision No. 23 of 2015- 16, which was dism issed by Addit ional Com m issioner, Garhwal vide j udgm ent dat ed 25.11.2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court by filing t he present writ pet it ion.

2. This Court does not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent s and orders, passed revenue aut horit ies in m ut at ion proceedings. I t is com m on knowledge t hat m ut at ion of nam e revenue records is done fiscal purposes, i.e. for collect ion of land revenue, and m ut at ion neit her creat es nor ext inguishes t it le. I n t he case of Sawarni v. I nder Kaur, report ed in ( 1996) 6 SCC 223, Hon’ble Suprem e Court clarified t he legal posit ion in t he following words: is ordered “ …Mut at ion of a propert y in t he revenue record does not creat e or ext inguishes t it le nor has it any presum pt ive value on t it le. I t only enables t he person in whose favour m ut at ion revenue in quest ion. The learned Addit ional Dist rict Judge was wholly in error in com ing t o a conclusion t hat m ut at ion in favour of I nder Kaur conveys t it le in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vit iat ed t he ent ire j udgm ent .” t o pay t he 2

3. Hon’ble Suprem e Court , t he case of Suraj Bhan & Ot hers v. Financial Com m issioner & Ot hers, report ed in ( 2007) 6 SCC 186, has held as under: I t in record- of- right s. “ 9. There is an addit ional reason as t o why we need t o int erfere wit h t hat order under Art icle 136 of t he Const it ut ion. I t is well set t led t hat an ent ry in revenue records does not confer t it le on a person whose nam e appears t he revenue t hat ent ries set t led records or j am abandi have only “ fiscal purpose” i.e. paym ent of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on t he basis of such ent ries. So far as t it le t o t he propert y is concerned, it can only be decided by a com pet ent civil court ( vide Jat t u Ram v. Hakam Singh) . As already not ed earlier, civil proceedings in regard t o genuineness of will are pending wit h t he High Court of Delhi. I n t he circum st ances, we see no reason t o int erfere wit h t he order passed by t he High Court in t he writ pet it ion.”

4. I n t he case of Jit endra Singh v. St at e of Madhya Pradesh & Ot hers, report ed in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, Hon’ble Suprem e Court has held as under: t he t he record “ 6. …as set t led proposit ion of law, m ut at ion ent ry does not confer any right , t it le or int erest in favour of t he person and t he m ut at ion ent ry in t he fiscal is only revenue purpose. As per t he set t led proposit ion of law, if t here is any disput e wit h respect t o t he t it le and m ore part icularly when t he m ut at ion ent ry is sought t o be m ade on t he basis of t he will, t he part y who is claim ing t it le/ right on t he basis of t he will has t o approach t he appropriat e civil court / court and get his right s cryst alised and only t hereaft er on t he decision t he basis of before t he civil court necessary m ut at ion ent ry can be m ade. 3 report ed

7. Right from 1997, t he law is very clear. I n t he case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh ( D) By Lrs., t his Court had an ( 1997) 7 SCC 137, occasion t o consider t he effect of m ut at ion and it is observed and held t hat m ut at ion of propert y in revenue records neit her creat es nor ext inguishes t it le t o t he propert y nor has it any presum pt ive value on t it le. Such ent ries are relevant only for t he purpose of collect ing land revenue. Sim ilar view has been expressed in t he series of decisions t hereaft er. t he t he far as t he propert y

8. I n t he case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Com m issioner, ( 2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by t his Court t hat an ent ry in revenue records does not confer t it le on a person whose nam e appears in revenue record- of- right s. Ent ries records or j am abandi have only “ fiscal purpose” , i.e., paym ent of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on t he basis of such ent ries. I t is furt her observed t hat t it le of concerned, it can only be decided by a com pet ent civil court . Sim ilar view has t he cases of Sum an been expressed Verm a v. Union of I ndia, ( 2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Taj uddin ( 2008) 8 SCC 12; Raj inder Singh v. St at e of J&K, ( 2008) 9 Corporat ion, Aurangabad v. St at e of Maharasht ra, ( 2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasim ha, ( 2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhim abai Mahadeo Kam bekar v. Art hur I m port & Export Co., ( 2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kum har, ( 2019) 10 SCC 259; and Aj it Kaur v. Darshan Singh, ( 2019) 13 SCC 70.” 368; Municipal SCC

5. Sect ion 40- A of Land Revenue Act reads as under: “ 4 0 - A . Sa v i n g a s t o t i t l e su i t s.—No order passed under Sect ion 33, Sect ion 35, Sect ion 39, Sect ion 40, Sect ion 41 or Sect ion 54 shall bar any suit in a com pet ent 4 court for relief on t he basis of a right in a holding.”

6. Thus it is abundant ly clear t hat quest ion of t it le cannot be decided in m ut at ion proceedings and t he rem edy for resolving t it le disput es is t o file a regular suit in a com pet ent court . Thus t he revenue aut horit ies were j ust ified in rej ect ing t he challenge t hrown by pet it ioner t o t he m ut at ion order, passed in favour of respondent no. 1. I f pet it ioner has any grievance, he is always at libert y t o approach com pet ent court of law by filing suit for declarat ion of his t it le or cancellat ion of sale deed execut ed in favour of respondent no. 1.

7. Consequent ly, writ pet it ion fails and dism issed. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 1 .5 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af 3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588 052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 5