Noor Mohammad & 2 Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, ... on 19 May, 2020
This Court considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur; 1996 (6) SCC 223, and in Sankalchan Jaychandbhai Patel Vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel; 1996 (6) SCC 433, that mutation in revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title, rather it only enables the person in whose favour mutation order is passed to pay the land revenue, to observe that summary proceedings not being regular proceedings, any orders passed there in do not have the character of a regular declaratory decree passed by a court of competent Jurisdiction. Any party even if not recorded in the revenue records on the basis of any mutation order can always challenge such an entry and put forth his or her claim once the consolidation operations begin in the village by filing objections under Section 9A-22 of the Act. It is settled law that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the person who is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property in question should be established ignoring such entries. Entries in the revenue records are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation proceedings do not create any title or interest thereon.