Mutation entry doesn't create right in favour of individual interest: SC

Mutation entry does not confer any property right, title or interest in favour of an individual and is only for the fiscal purpose, the Supreme Court has said.

A view of the Supreme Court | Photo: PTI
A view of the Supreme Court | Photo: PTI
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Sep 10 2021 | 2:12 PM IST

Mutation entry does not confer any property right, title or interest in favour of an individual and is only for the fiscal purpose, the Supreme Court has said.

Mutation of a property is the transfer or change of title entry in revenue records of the local municipal corporation.

A bench comprising Justices M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose said it cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will.

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, the bench said.

The apex court said that 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 has to approach the appropriate court.

It said that the applicant's rights can only be crystallised by approaching the court and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.

Referring to its earlier decisions, the top court said 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, it said.

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, the bench said.

The order came while upholding an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, directing to mutate the name of a person in the revenue records, which was sought to be mutated on the basis of the will.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Transfer of propertyintellectual property rightsSupreme Court

First Published: Sep 10 2021 | 2:12 PM IST

Next Story