LexRAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. -t [2008) 10 S.C.R. 773 RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5269 of 2003) JULY 11, 2008 [C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] A B Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980: Revenue records - Mutation entry - On death of owner of property, c names of sons entered into revenue records - Daughters filed appeal before the Authority under Tenancy Act claiming that mutation entry was null and void - Authority held that succes- sion devolved on sons and daughters had no share in the property - Upheld in revision and in review - Writ petition by D daughter seeking cancellation of mutation entry dismissed by Single Judge - Writ appeal however allowed by Division Bench - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Neither the Authority under Tenancy Act nor High Court could have entered into question of ownership, title or inheritance - Since the griev- ance was limited to the entry in revenue records, Authority con- E cerned and High Court were not right in entering into ques- tion of rights of parties as to title to the property - Revenue Records - Entries in - Relevancy of One 'M' was a Displaced Person in the year 1947 who F settled down in India in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir took policy de- cision in 1954 to allot agriculturat land with a view to re- habilitate displaced families and accordingly passed an order No.254 of 1965. In terms of Order No.254, Govern- G · · ment conferred ownership right in favour of displaced per-r sons who in pursuance of cabinet order 578(C) of 1954 •-" or any other Order about allotment in favour of such dis- placed persons who were settled on such lands. Para- 773 H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A graph 158(2) of the Cabinet Order No.578(C). conferred right on the allottee as also to the family members. 'M' was cultivating the land and was registered owner of the suit property. His name was entered in Jamabandi of 1966-67. He died in 1981. The Tehsildar substituted the names of B his sons and effected m·utation in revenue record. Aggrieved by the said entry in revenue record, daughters of 'M' fiJed appeal before Divisional Commis- sioner claiming that mutation entry in favour of sons of deceased was illegal and that they were also entit_led to C share in the property of their deceased father. The Divi- sional Commissioner dismissed the appeal· holding that succession devolved on two sons and daughters had no share. This order was upheld in revision petition and in review petition. Respondent no.2, one daughter of 'M' filed D writ petition seeking cancellation of mutation effected in favour of sons of deceased by declaring mutation entry null and void. The Writ Petition was dismissed. Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal setting aside all the orders. The said order is challenged by appellant, son E of deceased in the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1 The High Court was not justified in entering into larger question in view of the controversy before the F Authorities 1under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980. From the facts stated above, it is clear that land was allotted to 'M'.as a Displaced Person and in Jamabandi 1966-67, his name was entered. Mutation was made in his favour by Entry No. 291 on October 19, 1966. After G death of 'M' in 1981, Tehsildar entered names of sons of 'M' by Mutation No. 428. The said action was challenged by respondent No. 2 one of the daughters of 'M' and her sister. Their case was that being daughters, they were also entitled to inherit the property. The Authorities, unneces- sarily entered into question of rights of parties as to title H y +- RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR 775 & ORS. to the property. [Para 16] [779-G, 780-A,B] 2. It is well settled that Revenue Records confer no title on t!le party. Such entries are relevant only for "fis- A cal purpose" and substantive rights of title and of owner- ship of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings. [Para 8 17] [780-C,D] Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. (2007) 6 sec 186 - relied on. 3. It is clear from the record that grievance of respon- C dent No. 2 daughter related to Mutation entry. If the Au- thorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could have retained t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.