JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. –

Judgments and orders impugned in this writ petition were passed in mutation proceedings. According to petitioner, his father along with respondent no. 2 and one Shri Babu Lal Sharma (husband of respondent no. 3) jointly purchased land bearing Khasra No. 73-Ka, ad measuring 0.0730 hectare and Khasra No. 91-Kha, ad measuring 0.0740, total 0.1470 hectare, situate in Village Bishangarh, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun from one Mehar Singh, vide sale deed dated 7.12.1989; name of all the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records; respondent no. 2 and 3 sold their share in the land, jointly purchased with petitioner’s father (Babu Lal Sharma), to respondent no. 1 vide sale deed dated 17.4.2006; after purchasing the share of respondent no. 2 and 3, respondent no. 1 applied for mutation of his name in the revenue record by moving an application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act, which was allowed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dated 13.6.2008. Petitioner sought recall of the order dated 13.6.2008 by contending that since he is one of the co-owner of the land with respondent no. 2 and 3, who sold out the land in favour of respondent no. 1, therefore he has a right of hearing in the matter. Application for recall, made by petitioner, was dismissed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dated 10.4.2012. Petitioner thereafter filed appeal against Tehsildar’s order, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rishikesh vide judgment dated 15.6.2016. Petitioner thereafter filed Revision No. 23 of 2015-16, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Garhwal vide judgment dated 25.11.2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders, passed by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings. It is common knowledge that mutation of name in revenue records is done for fiscal purposes, i.e. for collection of land revenue, and mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title. 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.”

3. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Bhan & Others v. Financial Commissioner & Others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186, has held as under:

“9. There is an additional reason as to why we need to interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that 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. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition.”

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, (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., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

5. Section 40-A of Land Revenue Act reads as under:

“40-A. Saving as to title suits.—No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.”

6. Thus it is abundantly clear that question of title cannot be decided in mutation proceedings and the remedy for resolving title disputes is to file a regular suit in a competent court. Thus the revenue authorities were justified in rejecting the challenge thrown by petitioner to the mutation order, passed in favour of respondent no. 1. If petitioner has any grievance, he is always at liberty to approach competent court of law by filing suit for declaration of his title or cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 1.

7. Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********