These entries enable an individual in whose favour mutation is recorded to give the land revenue. These types of issues have been seen in many cases and some of the cases are discussed below.
“The Supreme Court on October 16, 2019, in the case of Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar & Ors., has held that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title.”
“The Division Bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari noted that such entries only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.”
“The court was hearing a civil appeal wherein the contention raised by the appellants was that since Mangal Kumhar (predecessor) was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property.”
“Rejecting the said contention, the court observed that “The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.”
“Since the appellants failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever, apart from the Survey Settlement of 1964 to establish that the suit property was the selfacquired property of Mangal Kumhar, the bench dismissed the appeal.”
“Rajinder Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 11 July, 2008, Supreme Court of India”
“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 substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings.”
“E. Parashuraman (D) By Lrs vs V. Doraiswamy (D) By Lr on 18 November, 2005,
Supreme Court of India”
“It was submitted before us that in the facts and circumstances of this case the tenants were justified in challenging the claim of the respondent to be the landlord. It was argued that the tenancy, if any, was created at an earlier stage and thereafter certain developments took place which justified the appellants’ challenge to the right of the landlord to seek their eviction. In this context it was submitted that after the court sale, though the name of Doraiswamy was added in the record maintained by the Corporation, his name was subsequently deleted. Doraiswamy, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration and also a decree for cancellation of the order deleting his name. The suit was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and order was also dismissed. Therefore, it was submitted, that the order of the Civil Court dismissing the suit filed by Doraiswamy attained finality. On the basis of these facts it was contended that Doraiswamy ceased to be the owner of the property and consequently could not exercise the rights conferred upon a landlord by the statute. The submission must be rejected firstly, for the reason that the landlord under the Karnataka Rent Control Act need not be the owner of the premises. Secondly, the mere dismissal of the suit did not, as a consequence, confer title on the Corporation in respect of the property in question. In fact we have noticed that a subsequent suit filed by the Corporation for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of Doraiswamy was null and void was also dismissed. In these circumstances whatever may be the dispute between the Corporation and the respondent, the appellants certainly cannot take advantage thereof, once having admitted that they were inducted as tenants by Doraiswamy, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. It is also interesting to note that in the suit filed by the Corporation a prayer was made for a direction to the respondent as well as to the appellants herein to handover vacant possession of the premises to the Corporation. The appellants derive their right to continue in possession of the premises only through the respondent. The judgment relied upon by the appellants in D. Satyanarayana vs. P. Jagdish : (1987) 4 SCC 424 is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the case. In our view there was no extinguishment of title of the respondent, even though there may be some dispute about it with the Corporation. It is well settled that entries in the revenue record may, at times, raise a presumption, but do not conclusively confer title.”
The above discussed body discusses about “the revenue record entries confer title to a property in India.” At the end of the discussion we find that no revenue record entries confer title to a property in India.