Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Confer Ownership, Civil Court Appropriate Forum To Decide Title Dispute: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that entries made in revenue records, such as mutations, do not confer ownership or title to property. Instead, such entries serve only a fiscal purpose, primarily for paying land revenue.The Court clarified that any disputes concerning the ownership or title of property, especially when based on contested documents like Wills, must be resolved by...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that entries made in revenue records, such as mutations, do not confer ownership or title to property. Instead, such entries serve only a fiscal purpose, primarily for paying land revenue.
The Court clarified that any disputes concerning the ownership or title of property, especially when based on contested documents like Wills, must be resolved by a Competent Civil Court.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the case, emphasized, “An entry in the revenue record does not confer title on a person, whose name appears in the record-of-rights. Such entries have only fiscal purpose, i.e., payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.”
She further clarified that only a Competent Civil Court has the authority to determine matters of title, particularly when there is a dispute over the validity of Wills and the corresponding mutation entries in revenue records.
The case involved a dispute over two Wills—one of which was the basis for the contested mutation, while the other was presented by the petitioners. After the mutation was attested based on the Will in question, the petitioners filed a civil suit challenging both the registered Will and the subsequent mutation.
The petitioners contended that the mutation entry made in favour of the opposing party, based on a registered Will, was invalid and should be quashed. They argued that the Will on which the mutation was based was not genuine and that the validity of this Will, as well as the mutation order itself, should be subject to determination by the Civil Court.
The petitioners further asserted that any mutation based on a disputed Will should not be considered final or binding until the rights of the parties have been crystallized through a civil court's adjudication. They sought the High Court's intervention to set aside the mutation, maintaining that only a Civil Court could properly resolve the underlying dispute over property ownership.
Recognizing the complexity of the issue, the Civil Court had issued an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the nature, possession, and alienation of the suit property until the case is fully resolved.
In her reasoning, Justice Rewal Dua referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Suraj Bhan & Ors. vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors., which clearly states that the validity and genuineness of a Will can only be determined by a Competent Civil Court.
The judgement also emphasized that entries in revenue records do not bestow ownership, as their purpose is limited to the payment of land revenue.
The High Court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge and dismissed the writ petition. The Court concluded that the mutation attested based on the disputed Will would remain subject to the final decree of the Civil Court, where the substantive issues regarding the Will and property title are being adjudicated.
Case Title: Shanker Singh Verma & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 46