Rajiv Sharma, J.@mdashHeard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the Contesting respondents and the State Counsel.
2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has assailed the validity and correctness of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities interalia on the grounds that the Consolidation Authorities have committed manifest error in law in not taking into account the effect of the family settlement of the year 1958, the sale deed dated 4.12.1961 and the judgment passed by the Civil Court dismissing the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The Consolidation authorities have also not considered the fact that Bhulai was recorded alongwith Ram Lakhan son of Dukh Chor consequent to the family settlement. Said Bhulai after obtaining ''Bhumidhari Sanad'' transferred his entire share in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner came in possession and is still in possession over the property in question and had also acquired bhumidhari rights.
3. Counsel for the contesting respondents has vehemently argued that the compromise in the mutation proceedings alleged to be done in the year 1958 was without jurisdiction as under the mutation proceedings, title and share cannot be decided. Further Lochai, who was having cotenancy right was not party to the said compromise though he was alive. Clarifying further, he submitted that Bhulai had acquired right over the land in dispute through the compromise in mutation proceedings with Ram Lakhan, which was beyond the scope of mutation proceedings. Moreover, Bhulai was not competent to transfer the land in dispute on 4.12.1961, as on the said date he was having no right over the land in dispute in so far as he was recorded as Sirdar and the Sirdars have no right of transfer.
4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in its judgment has approved the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the land was settled afresh with Dugchore. Bhulai came into picture on the basis of a compromise dated 14.14.1958 in the mutation proceeding. Lochai was alive when Dugchore died but he was not impleaded in the said compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after appreciating the material evidence on record has recorded a clear finding that when Bhulai had no share in the land which was settled afresh with Dugchor and when the compromise dated 24.4.1958 was null and void, the sale deed dated 4.12.1961 has no bearing on the share of Rajman.
5. It may be added that now, it is a settled proposition of law that mutation entries are only to enable the State, to collect revenues from the person in possession and enjoyment of the property and that the right, title and interest as to the property should be established dehors the entries. Entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property. Mutation entries do not create any title or interest therein.
6. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others, (1996) 6SCC 223 the Apex Court held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
