Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

High Court of Madhya Pradesh Dismisses Petition Seeking Mutation of Names Based on Will, Citing “Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership,” Emphasizes Civil Court’s Role in Title Declaration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissed a Misc. Petition (No. 38 of 2023) seeking mutation of names on the basis of a Will, asserting that “mutation entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title to the property.” The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia on July 21, 2023, highlighted that such mutation entries are relevant solely for land revenue purposes and do not confer ownership rights.

The case revolved around the petitioners, Sushil Kumar Shukla and others, who had filed an application for mutation of their names based on a Will executed by Ramsunder Shukla for specific khasra numbers in Village Chorhata and Village Chorhati, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa. The application was partially allowed by the Tehsildar and subsequently appealed by the petitioners, leading to the SDO Huzur, District Bhopal, allowing the appeal.

However, the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, modified the SDO’s order based on inaccuracies, which led to respondents 1 to 25 applying for impleadment in the pending appeal. The Additional Commissioner allowed the application, leading to the present petition challenging the order.

The court, while upholding the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various landmark cases, stressed that mutation of names based on a Will is not permissible and falls outside the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities. Such entries in revenue records have no presumptive value on title and are solely relevant for land revenue collection purposes. The court further emphasized that the title to the property can only be determined by a competent civil court.

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.” Additionally, the court noted that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that an entry in revenue records does not confer ownership rights and that the legal title to the property can only be established through a competent civil court.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition seeking mutation based on the Will, advising the petitioners to seek a declaration of title through a competent civil court, as mutation entries alone cannot confer ownership rights. This judgment serves as a significant precedent, clarifying the scope and limitations of mutation entries in revenue records in property law cases.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2023

SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA vs SMT. SUSHILA

Similar News