Holding

Revenue records do not confer title; disputes over ownership must be decided by a civil court, and the authority and High Court were not justified in deciding the larger question of inheritance.

Summary

Makhan Singh, a displaced person, was allotted agricultural land in Jammu & Kashmir under Government Order No. 254 of 1965 and his ownership was entered in the Jamabandi of 1966‑67. After his death in 1981, the Tehsildar mutated the entry in favour of his two sons, Rajinder Singh and Daljit Singh. The daughters, Kuldip Kaur and Balbir Kaur, challenged the mutation, claiming inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act and the Jammu & Kashmir Hindu Succession Act. The Divisional Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner and a Single Judge dismissed their claims, but the Division Bench of the High Court set aside those orders and allowed the daughters' appeal. The Supreme Court held that revenue records such as mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not determine title; therefore the authority under the Jammu & Kashmir Tenancy Act and the High Court were not justified in deciding the larger question of ownership. The Court directed the parties to seek determination of substantive ownership rights in a competent civil court and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court order.

Issues considered

Whether the authority under the Jammu & Kashmir Tenancy Act and the High Court could adjudicate ownership and inheritance rights when the grievance was limited to a mutation entry in revenue records.
Whether a mutation entry can be declared null and void on the basis of the daughters' alleged inheritance rights.
Whether revenue records confer title to the party whose name appears therein.

Legislation cited

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Subjects

mutation entryrevenue recordsinheritance rightsHindu Succession ActJammu & Kashmir Tenancy Actcivil court jurisdictiontitle of landdisplaced persons

Judgment

[2008) 10 S.C.R. 773

RAJINDER SINGH A
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5269 of 2003)
JULY 11, 2008
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,
JJ.]

Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980: Revenue
records - Mutation entry - On death of owner of property, c
names of sons entered into revenue records - Daughters filed
appeal before the Authority under Tenancy Act claiming that
mutation entry was null and void - Authority held that succes-
sion devolved on sons and daughters had no share in the
property - Upheld in revision and in review - Writ petition by D
daughter seeking cancellation of mutation entry dismissed by
Single Judge - Writ appeal however allowed by Division Bench
- Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Neither the Authority
under Tenancy Act nor High Court could have entered into
question of ownership, title or inheritance - Since the griev-
ance was limited to the entry in revenue records, Authority con- E
cerned and High Court were not right in entering into ques-
tion of rights of parties as to title to the property - Revenue
Records - Entries in - Relevancy of
One 'M' was a Displaced Person in the year 1947 who F
. -t settled down in India in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir took policy de-
cision in 1954 to allot agriculturat land with a view to re-
habilitate displaced families and accordingly passed an
order No.254 of 1965. In terms of Order No.254, Govern- G · ·
ment conferred ownership right in favour of displaced per-r
sons who in pursuance of cabinet order 578(C) of 1954
•-" or any other Order about allotment in favour of such dis-
placed persons who were settled on such lands. Para-
773 H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A graph 158(2) of the Cabinet Order No.578(C). conferred
right on the allottee as also to the family members. 'M' was
cultivating the land and was registered owner of the suit
property. His name was entered in Jamabandi of 1966-67.
He died in 1981. The Tehsildar substituted the names of
B his sons and effected m·utation in revenue record.
y
Aggrieved by the said entry in revenue record,
daughters of 'M' fiJed appeal before Divisional Commis-
sioner claiming that mutation entry in favour of sons of
deceased was illegal and that they were also entit_led to
C share in the property of their deceased father. The Divi-
sional Commissioner dismissed the appeal· holding that
succession devolved on two sons and daughters had no
share. This order was upheld in revision petition and in
review petition. Respondent no.2, one daughter of 'M' filed
D writ petition seeking cancellation of mutation effected in
favour of sons of deceased by declaring mutation entry
null and void. The Writ Petition was dismissed. Division
Bench of High Court allowed the appeal setting aside all
the orders. The said order is challenged by appellant, son
E of deceased in the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1 The High Court was not justified in entering
into larger question in view of the controversy before the
F Authorities 1under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act,
1980. From the facts stated above, it is clear that land +-
was allotted to 'M'.as a Displaced Person and in Jamabandi
1966-67, his name was entered. Mutation was made in
his favour by Entry No. 291 on October 19, 1966. After
G death of 'M' in 1981, Tehsildar entered names of sons of
'M' by Mutation No. 428. The said action was challenged
by respondent No. 2 one of the daughters of 'M' and her
sister. Their case was that being daughters, they were also
entitled to inherit the property. The Authorities, unneces-
sarily entered into question of rights of parties as to title
H
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 775
& ORS.

to the property. [Para 16] [779-G, 780-A,B] A
2. It is well settled that Revenue Records confer no
title on t!le party. Such entries are relevant only for "fis-
cal purpose" and substantive rights of title and of owner-
ship of contesting claimants can be decided only by a
competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings. [Para 8
17] [780-C,D]
Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors.
(2007) 6 sec 186 - relied on.
3. It is clear from the record that grievance of respon- C
dent No. 2 daughter related to Mutation entry. If the Au-
thorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980
felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could
have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was limited
to the entry in Revenue Records and nothing more. It had D
no bearing whatsoever as to right of ownership, inherit-
ance or title to the property. Therefore, neither the Authori-
ties under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have
entered into question of ownership, title or inheritance in
the present proceedings and they ought to have decided E
the controversy limited to mutation entry in the Revenue
Records. [Para 18] [780-D,E,F]
4. All the parties are left to take appropriate proceed-
ings in accordance with law in a competent civil Court so
far as substantive rights of ownership, title or inheritance F
are concerned. In view of the fact, however, that certain
observations have been made and questions have been
considered with regard to rights of sons and daughters
in the property of father under the Hindu Succession Act
as also under the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession G
Act, all those observations which were not relevant in view
of the limited question before the Revenue Authorities,
would have no effect in the proceedings before the Civil
Court if such proceedings have been initiated in a com-
petent Court. [Para 19] [755-G, 776-A] H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

+-- "-
A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5269
of 2003
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29. 7.2002 of
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. No.
(W) No. 621 of 1999
B y
Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
S. Mehdi Imam, Anis Suhrawardy, Dinesh Kumar Garg and
R.C. Kai.Jshik for the Respondents.

c T~e Judgme.nt .of the Court was delivered by

c~K. THAKKER, J. ~.This appeal is directed against the
judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir on July 29, 2002 in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 621 of 1999. By the said order, the Division·Bench
D of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 2
'j
herein (ind set aside the order passed by the single JuQ.ge dated
November 12, 1998 in Writ Petition No. 457 of 1993.
2. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that one Makhan ~
Singh was a Displaced Person in: th!3 year 1947 who settled
E
down in India in the State of Jam mu and Kashmir. The Govern-
ment of Jam mu and Kashmir had taken a policy decision in the
year 1954 to allot agricultural land with a view to rehabilitate
displaced .families who were forced to leave the other side of
the border (now Pakistan) in 1947 in the wake of partition and
F who were holding land in that area. -It-
3: The Government, in pursuance of the said policy, passed
an order being Government Order No. 254 of 1965 conferring
ownership right upon Makhan Singh. The said order reads thus:
G·'" "The Government hereby grant proprietary rights on the
State lands in favour of the displaced persons fromrnoh- ~. '
liberated areas of the -State who in pursuance of Cabinet ~,.

order No. 578-C of 1954 or any other order issued prior.
to the CO No. 578-C of 1954 about allotments in favour of
H such displaced persons'", have been settled on such lands"
.

RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 777
~-\- & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

and partly on evacuee lands subject to the condition that A
the allottees have continuously been holding the land from
the date of the allotment and have been so recorded. The
grantees shall be liable to the payment of land revenue
assessed at village rates according to the class of soil
'"II'
which the land belonged to or has assumed on being B
cultivated or if there is no village rate available·, to such
land revenue as may be fixed by the Collector with regard
to the assessment of similar land in the assessment circle
in which such land is situated and also to the payment of
ceases and other dues payable under any land for the c
time being in force."
4. Paragraph 15-8(2) of the Cabinet Order No. 578-C of
1954 conferred right on the allottee as also to the family mem-
bers. It reads thus:
-"'(
D
"15-8(2) if an allottee dies his interest in the allotted land
'\ shall devolve on other members of his family in whose
favour allotment of land has been originally made or
regularized under these rules and on those who may have
become members of the family by way of marriage, birth
or adoption after such allotment excluding those who may E
have died earlier or may have left, the family on account
of marriage or adoption."
5. It appears that Makhan Singh was cultivating the land
\ -...;
and was the registered owner of the property. He was conferred F
proprietary rights. His name had been entered in the Jamabandi
of 1966-67. It was Mutation No. 291 of Village Tariara, Tehsil
Kathua. Makhan Singh was shown as the original allottee.
6. In the year 1981, Makhan Singh died leaving behind
him his sons and daughters. By an order dated March 13, 1985, G
Tehsildar, Kathua substituted the names of Rajinder Singh (ap-
·~ pellant herein) and Daljit Singh, two sons of Makhan Singh and
effected Mutation No. 428 in Revenue Record.
7. Being aggrieved by the said entry in Revenue Record,
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
+- ..
A Kuldip Kaur and Balbir Kaur (daughters of deceased Makhan
Singh) preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner,
Jammu, inter alia, contending that mutation made in favour of
Rajinder Singh and Daljit Singh (sons) was illegal and the ap-
..
pellants who were daughters of deceased Makhan Singh were
y
B also entitled to the share in the property of their deceased fa-
ther. Jhe Divisional Commissioner, however, dismissed the
appeal by an order dated January 29, 1990 observing that the
succession devolved on two sons Rajinder Singh and Daljit
, Singh and daughters had no share.
..
c 8. Balbir Kaur preferred revision petition before. the Fi-
'

nancial Commissioner against the order passed by the Divi-
J
sional Commissioner. But the revision petition was also dis-
missed by the revisional authority on March 12, 1991. The re-.
view against the said order also met with the same fate.
'f
D
9. Balbir Kaur, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No. 457 of ~
1993 for quashing and setting aside order passed by the Fi- f:
nancial Commissioner. A prayer was made to allow the writ
petition and to cancel mutation effected in favour of sons of de-
ceased Makhan Singh by declaring mutation entry null and void.
E The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition.
10. The order passed by the learned Single Jµdge was
challenged by filing a Letters Patent Appeal and as observed
above, the appeal was allowed by the Division Bench setting I

F aside all orders. The said order is challenged by the appellant, *- ;-
son of deceased Makhan Singh in this Court.
, 11. Notice was issued by this Court on December 13, 2002
and interim stay was also granted on the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court. Leave was granted on July 25, 2005
G and interim relief was ordered to continue.
~ ....
12. On April 11, 2008, as per order of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India, the matter wa's ordered to be placed for final
~earing during summer vacation and that is how the matter has
been placed before us.
R
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 779
~
-+· & ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that A
) the Division Bench of the High Court was wholly wrong in allow-
ing the Letters Patent Appeal and setting aside the orders
'
I
passed by the Authorities as also by the learned single Judge.
It was submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court was
...._,,,
• wrong in applying the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 B
ignoring the relevant provisions of law i.e. the Jam mu and Kash-
mir Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as also the Jam mu and Kash-
mir Tenancy Act, 1980. It was also contended that the view taken
by the Division Bench was not in consonance with Section 3-A
of the Agrarian Reforms Act, Section 67 of the Jam mu and Kash- c
mir Tenancy Act as also Rule 15-B(2) of Cabinet Order No. 578-
C/1954.
14. It was urged that the contesting respondent herein was
the daughter of Makhan Singh, who had already got married.
She, therefore, could not be said to be a 'member' of Makhan D
Singh's family and was not entitled to inherit the property under
the Jammu and Kashmir Act. According to the counsel, the
action taken by the Authorities under the Tenancy Act and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge were legal, valid and
in accordance with law and.could not have been interfered with E
in Letters Patent Appeal. It was, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order deserved to be set aside by restoring the or-
ders passed by the Authorities and confirmed by the learned
Single Judge.
--r
15. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other F
hand, supported the order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court and submitted that it was right in allowing the Let-
ters Patent Appeal and in making the order. This Court in exer-
cise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution may not
interfere with the order. G
~+ 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in
our opinion, the High Court was notjustified in entering into larger
question in view the controversy before the Authorities under
the Tenancy Act. From the facts stated above, it is clear that
H

L
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R.

A land was allotted to Makhan Singh as a Displaced Person and
in Jamabandi 1966-67, his name was entered. Mutation was
made in his favour by Entry No. 291 on October 19, 1966. After
death of Makhan Singh in 1981, Tehsildar of Kathua entered 'l
names of sons of deceased Makhan Singh vide Mutation No. I

ye
B 428. The said action was challenged by respondent No. 2 herein
(one of the daughters of Makhan Singh) and her sister Kuldeep
Kaur. Their case was that being daughters, they were also en-
titled to ,inherit the property. The Authorities, in our opinion, un-
necessarily entered into question of rights of parties as to title
C to the property.
17. It is well settled that Revenue Records confer no title
on the party. It has been recently held by this Court in Suraj
Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC
186, that such entries are relevant only for "fiscal purpose" and
D substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claim-
ants can be decided only by a competent civil Court in appro-
priate proceedings.
18. It ls clear from the record that grievance of respondent
No. 2 daughter related to Mutation entry. If the Authorities under
E the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in consonance with law,
it could have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was lim-
ited to the entry in Revenue Records and nothing more. It had
no bearing whatsoever as to right of ownership, inheritance or
title to the property. In our opinion, therefore, neither the Authori-
F ties under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have en-
tered into question of ownership, title or inheritance in the
present proceedings and they ought to have decided the con-
troversy limited to mutation entry in the Revenue Records.
G 19. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed
of by leaving all the parties to take appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law in a competent civil Court so far as sub-
stantive rights of ownership, title or inheritance are concerned.
In view of the fact, however, that certain observations have been
H made and questiol)s have been considered with regard to rights
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 781
& ORS. [C.K. THAKKER, J.]

of sons and daughters in the property of father under the Hindu A
Succession Act as also under the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu
Succession Act, we clarify that all those observations which were
not relevant in view of the limited question before the Revenue
Authorities, would have no effect in the proceedings before the
Civil Court if such proceedings have been initiated in a compe- B
tent Court.
20. We , therefore, dispose of this appeal by granting lib-
erty to the parties to take appropriate proceedings in a compe-
tent Civil Court by making it clear that the observations made in
Bf
the orders Revenue Authorities as also by the High Court will C
not come in the way of the parties in a suit as and when pro-
. ceedings have been initiated for the purpose of determination
of substantive rights of ownership.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be
-f 0
allowed and is accordingly allowed by setting aside the order
passed by the Division Bench and by granting liberty to the par-
ties to take appropriate proceedings. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal allowed.