Patta does not confer any title - Supreme Court
The Bench of the Supreme Court, Justices MR Shah & Aniruddha Bose recently observed that “If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be madeon the basis of the Will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the Will has to approach the civil court and get his rights crystalised.
The Earlier Judgments:
The Supreme Court referred to the Judgment in Balwant Singh vs Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 -
“Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh vs Daulat Singh, 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.”
The Supreme Court further noted that in Suraj Bhan vs Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, it was held that an entry in revenue records does not confer a title on a person whose name appears in the 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,” it noted.
The Court noticed that similar view has been expressed in the cases of --
Suman Verna vs Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58,
Fakhruddin vs Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12,
Rajinder Singh vs State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368,
Municipal Corpn, Aurangabad vs State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689,
T.Ravi vs B.Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342,
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambedkar vs Arthur Import & Export Co (2019) 3 SCC 191,
Prahad Pradhan vs Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259,
Ajit Kaur vs Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.
No comments:
Post a Comment