Mutation Proceedings | Revenue Authorities Cannot Adjudicate Title Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of mutation proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, holding that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate questions of title or validity of civil court decrees. The judgment clarifies that mutation entries are purely fiscal and administrative, and revenue officers must give effect to registered court decrees without re-examining their merits.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Meena A. Rizvi, proprietor of M/s. Meena Constructions, claimed title to land bearing Survey No.236, Hissa No.2, CTS No. B/1061 in Mumbai based on a Consent Decree passed by the Bombay High Court in 1985. The decree, registered in 2007, directed conveyance of the property in her favour following a settlement in a specific performance suit.

Procedural History

The case progressed through multiple revenue authorities:

• 2007: Petitioner applied for mutation based on the registered Consent Decree
• 2008: City Survey Officer allowed mutation (Entry No.2248)
• 2009: Superintendent of Land Records set aside the mutation
• 2010: Deputy Director of Land Records affirmed the deletion
• 2011: State of Maharashtra dismissed the revision petition

The Parties' Positions

• Petitioner: Relied on the Consent Decree and argued revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to question title
• Respondent No.5 (Bendict Soares): Claimed to be a lessee and challenged the mutation on grounds of:
  • Lack of probate for the vendors' title
  • Subsisting prohibitory orders
  • Delay in registering the decree
• State of Maharashtra: Contended the decree was void due to vendors' lack of representative title

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 permit revenue authorities to:

1. Refuse mutation based on a registered civil court decree
2. Adjudicate the validity of testamentary succession or title
3. Examine the legality of transactions underlying such decrees

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Jurisdictional Limits: Revenue authorities cannot sit in appeal over civil court decrees (Shrikant R. Sankanwar v. Krishna Balu Naukudkar)
• Documentary Primacy: Registered decrees must be given effect under Sections 149-150 MLRC
• Locus Standi: Respondent No.5 failed to prove any subsisting right or interest
• Finality of Decrees: The Consent Decree attained finality and binds all subordinate authorities

For the Respondents

• Statutory Compliance: Mutation was rightly refused due to:
  • Lack of probate for the vendors' title (Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh)
  • Violation of prohibitory orders (Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. State of Maharashtra)
  • Delay in registering the decree
• Person Interested: Respondent No.5 qualified as an affected party under Section 150(2) MLRC (Dossibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy v. P.M. Bharucha)
• Concurrent Findings: Writ court should not interfere with revenue authorities' decisions (Ajay Singh v. Khacheru)

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the scope of mutation proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, emphasizing:

1. Fiscal Nature of Mutation:

"The powers under Sections 149 and 150 are for updating revenue records for fiscal purposes, not adjudicating title. Mutation entries neither confer nor extinguish title." (Shrikant R. Sankanwar, para 9)

1. Binding Effect of Civil Decrees:

"Once a decree attains finality and is registered, revenue authorities are duty-bound to take cognizance of it. They cannot re-examine its legality or the merits of the underlying transaction." (Para 62)

1. Jurisdictional Overreach: The impugned orders were vitiated because revenue authorities:

• Questioned the validity of testamentary succession
• Examined the authority of vendors to convey title
• Assessed the legality of registration of the decree
• Considered the effect of prohibitory orders

1. Distinguishing Precedents:

• Jitendra Singh: Distinguished as it involved an unproved will, whereas the present case rested on a registered Consent Decree
• Keshrimal Jivji Shah: Held inapplicable as the decree's validity was not under challenge in civil proceedings
• Ajay Singh: Not attracted because revenue authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction

1. Locus Standi of Respondent No.5:

• Mere assertion of tenancy insufficient; no documentary proof of subsisting right
• Mutation proceedings cannot be obstructed by unsubstantiated claims

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding:

1. The impugned orders were vitiated by jurisdictional error and patently illegal
2. Mutation Entry No.2248 must be restored in the Property Register Card
3. The restoration is purely for fiscal purposes and does not confer or extinguish title
4. Respondent No.4 was directed to implement the order within four weeks

What This Means For Similar Cases

Mutation Proceedings Are Not Title Adjudication

Revenue authorities must:

• Limit scrutiny to verifying whether documents produced disclose apparent acquisition of rights
• Refrain from examining the validity of civil court decrees or underlying transactions
• Give effect to registered decrees unless set aside by a competent court

Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Assertions

• Unsubstantiated claims of tenancy or possession cannot obstruct mutation
• Bald assertions without foundational proof (e.g., registered lease deeds) are insufficient to establish locus standi
• Concurrent findings by revenue authorities are not sacrosanct if they exceed statutory jurisdiction

Civil Court Decrees Bind Revenue Authorities

• Registered decrees must be reflected in revenue records regardless of:
  • Delay in registration
  • Pending testamentary proceedings
  • Alleged defects in underlying agreements
• Revenue authorities cannot declare civil court decrees void or unenforceable