Appellate authority against order of sub collector
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 25 October 2023
This query is : Resolved
I had filed for mutation in ROR, for property purchased from recorded owner in 2013, at tahsil office.
A third party filed an objection at tahsil, that there is a court case on the property, between third party and his tenant, and tehsildar dropped the mutation proceedings.
The purchaser filed an appeal at sub collectors office, but the case remains un-heard.
Subsequently, the purchaser again filed for mutation, this time, the asst. Tehsildar allowed mutation and issued Patta.
The third party appealed against at sub collectors office, and sub collector set aside the ROR issued by Asst Tahsildar.
1. Where can we appeal against Sub collector's order?
2. Is our claim for mutation, is rightful or not?
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 25 October 2023
You can file a suit for injuction and declaration.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate 
(Expert) 26 October 2023
Appeal from decree of Assistant Collector of the first class or of Collector to Commissioner or civil Court.
An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector in any of the suits included in Group A of the Fourth Schedule
An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class or of a Collector in all suits, in which a question of jurisdiction has been decided and is in issue in the appeal;
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 26 October 2023
T Kalaiselvan, Sir, please clarify, I could not understand what you said. Whom shall I appeal to, 1. collector, 2. Revenue Divisional Commissioner, 3. Revenue Board or 4. district Judge? I have an opinion that since its a revenue matter, either of 1, 2 or 3 shall be approached, instead of getting into judiciary. please guide
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 26 October 2023
As the Sub-collector passed the order, the appeal lies with the District Collector in my view.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2023
Since it is a revenue matter and the sub collector is of the rank of the RDO, an appeal would be preferred before the district collector, which is the appellate court/authority.
Dr. J C Vashista
(Expert) 29 October 2023
It is the District Collector / Magistrate for filing an appeal to assail the orders of Sub-Collector / SDM
P. Venu
(Expert) 30 October 2023
Land and Land Revenue is a State subject. Each State has its own norms. As such, any suggestion depends upon the laws and procedure, as in force, in the concerned State.
Moreover, a mere entry in the RoR does not create, alter or destroy rights. The question of title could only be decided by the competent Civil Court.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 31 October 2023
P. Venu sir , I have different opinion. Entry in ROR is the final step, of ownership of a land. The procedure of transfer of a property is done thru a registered sale deed between the owner ( initial ROR holder) / vendor and the buyer of the property/ vendee. there after the govt records ( Register of Record ROR) is rectified/ updated , by inserting the name of the buyer in place of the seller. Once this is done, The tahsil issues a Patta. this procedure is same in all over the country , in my knowledge.
P. Venu
(Expert) 31 October 2023
In this context the Supreme Court has held in the case of Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag V. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj that Revenue Record is not a Document of Title -
"26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors. negated argument of ownership based upon entries in the revenue records. It was held
that the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. The Court held as under:
“5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the
revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property.”
Again, the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh has held that Mutation Entry does not confer any Right, Title or Interest In favour of any person-
"5. We have heard Shri Nishesh Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt. Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party
who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.
"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been
expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.
6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."
The Court had reiterated in the case of Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. vs. Sonu Kumhar & Ors. that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title -
"5. The contention raised by the Appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.
As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhar’s name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property."
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 02 November 2023
Thanks to every one who suggested the best as per their own opinion. However, we have been adviced by lawyers here that we need to file appeal against the order of Sub- Collector, in the court of Revenue Divisional Commissioner of the region.
However, my second question still remains un answered, as to whether our claim for getting mutation in our favour is righteous or not.
