Property - Mutation - Title - Rights

Interestingly it appears that among other issues a particular point name mutation in land related matters keep on coming up before the various court of laws and while some aspect of it has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as early as 1996, the same issue keeps on getting decided incorrectly.

Case 1

H. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY & ORS. VS L. VENKATESH REDDY, Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-3726 of 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3377-3378 of 2011]-Decided on 17-4-2015. 

Held:

The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mututation, 1st defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh's case (supra) are relevant and are extracted below :

                "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7)

                                 "7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish 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."

                22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired."

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the 1st defendant by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion is liable to be set aside.

Case 2

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER  Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, Civil Appeal No. 1968 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26467 of 2013) -Decided on 17-2-2015

Held:

7. What we find in the present case is that the dispute relates to mutation; in the revenue record the land has been mutated and recorded in the name of the appellant-Corporation. This was opposed by the respondent no. 2 who had not been granted relief by the competent authorities at the different stages. Therefore, he moved before the High Court against the mutation. The High Court while allowing the writ petition doubted the title of the appellant-Corporation and made the following observations: 

          "Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/Corporation then argued that assuming that the petitioner has claimed for title, he ought to have filed suit and ought to have got suitable declaration in his favour. He suggested that the order of Revenue Authorities directing mutation in absence of declaratory decree is not tenable. In any case, he suggested that such entry did not give title to the Corporation. I my view, this submission is devoid of merits because the Corporation's claim of title is rather dubious then the Revenue Authorities ought to have rejected their request for mutation."

8. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue.

9. In the present case, we find that a disputed question of fact was raised by the parties with regard to the title over the land in question. The appellant-Corporation on the one hand based its claim of title on payment of amount by depositing it in the court and possession of the land taken pursuant to the agreement reached between the appellant-Corporation and the father of the respondent no.2. On the other hand, the case of the 2nd respondent is that the amount was not deposited by the appellant-Corporation with regard to the land in question. In view of the fact that there is a disputed question of fact, we are of the view that it was not a fit case for the High Court to decide the question of mutation doubting the title in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and thereby reversing the concurrent finding of fact by the competent authorities.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, we set the aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.10512 of 2010 with Civil Application No.8801 of 2012 but keep the question of title open for determination in appropriate case, if such claim is made by the aggrieved person. We further make it clear that if the title is decided in favour of one or other person by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the competent authority of the State/Revenue Authority will make necessary corrections as per decision of the court. It will be open to the parties to raise all the contentions before the Competent Court as raised before this Court.

The situations cited above happens because the circumstances involved in each matter is different resulting in different view of the Hon'ble Judges. Having said that it definitely adds to the general confusion.