Topic
A pending SARFAESI appeal or criminal case cannot block mutation, as the Orissa HC held mutation proceedings fiscal and do not affect title. The court restored rights and ordered the Tahasildar to correct the Record of Rights within two weeks.
The Orissa High Court has ruled that revenue authorities handling mutation proceedings lack jurisdiction to adjudicate ownership disputes - even when conflicting sale deeds are presented. Only civil courts can determine title, and a registered sale deed is sufficient for mutation, rendering revenue records non-conclusive on ownership. This clarifies the limits of administrative power in land record updates and protects buyers relying on documented transfers.
The J&K High Court ruled that hereditary custodianship (Sajjada Nasheeni) of Sufi shrines does not equate to ownership, reinforcing that such properties qualify as 'wakaf by user' under Section 3(d) of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978. The judgment underscores that revenue records prevail over historical texts in determining wakaf status, impacting management rights of religious trusts in J&K.
Jharkhand High Court rules that under Section 83(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, a registered patta and final record-of-rights serve as conclusive evidence of title, rendering restoration petitions unsustainable after a 45-year delay, even if fraud is alleged. The ruling reinforces statutory finality in land disputes, impacting long-pending property claims in Scheduled Areas.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that suits challenging mutation entries under Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act remain maintainable in civil courts, even against Gram Panchayats, unless the dispute involves land classification or vesting under the Haryana Village Common Lands Act. This preserves judicial recourse for landowners contesting revenue records without triggering statutory bars.