WPMS/1530/2024 on 8 August, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1530/2024 on 8 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                   2025:UHC:7012
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS/1530/2024
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate for the
petitioner.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder
for the State.

2. Petitioner has challenged judgment and
order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Board of
Revenue, Uttarakhand in Revision No. 11 of
2022-23. He has also challenged order dated
19.10.2022, passed by Assistant Collector, 1st
Class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar in
Appeal No. 1 of 2021 and order dated
22.06.2015 passed by Tehsildar, Haridwar in
Suit No. 112 of 1986. The judgment and orders
impugned herein have been passed in mutation
proceedings

3. Law is well settled that mutation of name
in review record neither creates nor extinguishes
title. Mutation is done for fiscal purposes only.
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
2025:UHC:7012
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.”

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,
2025:UHC:7012
(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. Perusal of record reveals that the land
originally belonged to one Swami Kamal Das.
After his death, several persons are staking
claim over the land as disciple of Swami Kamal
Das.

6. Question of title over the land, can only be
decided in a regular suit for declaration, which
none of the parties has filed as yet.

7. In such view of the matter, this Court do
not find any reason to entertain this writ
petition.

8. The writ petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to approach a competent
Court of law for seeking declaration of his
rights.

9. The judgment and orders passed by
revenue authorities in mutation proceedings will
not come in the way of determination of
petitioner’s right in such declaratory suit.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.08.2025
Mahinder/
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH

MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b0892
3c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4B
ABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2025.08.12 14:53:18 +05’30’
2025:UHC:7012