Land ownership can’t be decided through mutation, says Jharkhand HC
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, July 15: The Jharkhand High Court today ruled that land ownership cannot be decided through mutation proceedings, dismissing…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, July 15: The Jharkhand High Court today ruled that land ownership cannot be decided through mutation proceedings, dismissing an appeal filed by Kishori Sah and seven others in a long-running land dispute from Hazaribagh and reiterating that such disputes must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar upheld the order of a Single Judge, holding that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title while dealing with mutation or jamabandi matters.
The appeal was filed by Kishori Sah, Chandeshwar Sao, Arjun Gope, Razaque Ali alias Md. Razaque Ali, Nezamuddin, Mokhtar Ali alias Mokhtar Mian, Haidar Ali and Laxman Giri.
The respondents included the State of Jharkhand, its revenue authorities, and the legal heirs of late Vishwanath Baidh—Subodh Kumar Baidya alias Subodh Kumar Mishra, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sushil Kumar Mishra, Praween Kumar Mishra and Manju Devi.
The dispute relates to nearly 24.79 acres of land in Village Kabilasi, Daru Circle, Hazaribagh.
Mutation Does Not Confer Ownership
The appellants claimed that the land had been settled in favour of their predecessors several decades ago and that they had been in possession for years, supported by mutation entries and rent receipts.
However, the legal heirs of late Vishwanath Baidh contested the claim, asserting ownership over the disputed property.
The High Court observed that mutation entries and rent receipts are maintained only for revenue purposes and do not create or establish ownership rights.
It held that where rival claims over land exist, the issue of title can only be decided after a detailed examination of evidence by a competent civil court.
Revenue Authorities Cannot Cancel Long-Standing Jamabandi
The Bench also reiterated that revenue authorities cannot cancel a long-standing jamabandi (record of rights) while deciding mutation proceedings, as they lack the statutory power to adjudicate title disputes.
The Court relied on settled legal principles that mutation neither creates nor extinguishes ownership rights and is intended solely for fiscal administration.
Liberty to Approach Civil Court
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court granted liberty to the appellants to pursue appropriate remedies before a civil court if they seek a declaration of ownership.
The Bench made it clear that only after a competent civil court determines the rights of the parties can consequential revenue entries be made.
