Revenue authorities must consider civil decrees clouding title before altering mutation entries.

The petitioners claimed through their mother, Naremma, who had purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 1 October 1965. The Assistant Commissioner ordered mutation in the petitioners’ favour on that basis on 17 December 2021.

The Deputy Commissioner later set aside that order by order dated 28 June 2023 in revision, which the petitioners challenged in this writ petition.

The dispute also involved a registered sale deed dated 8 April 2010 in favour of respondent No. 7, which had been challenged in O.S. No. 164/2017. The High Court noted that the civil suit had resulted in a compromise decree requiring respondent No. 7 to pay an amount to the plaintiff.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s mutation order without considering the civil court proceedings and compromise decree concerning the 2010 sale deed.

2. Whether, in light of those proceedings, respondent No. 7 was justified in pursuing the revision against the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent.

It proceeds on the basis that revenue authorities must consider material facts and relevant civil court proceedings when deciding a mutation dispute.

A revenue mutation order does not finally determine private title: the parties remain free to establish their rights before the competent forum and, if appropriate, seek a change of khata from the revenue authorities.

The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had not considered the judgment and compromise decree in O.S. No. 164/2017, which raised a cloud over respondent No. 7’s acquisition under the 2010 sale deed.

In contrast, the Assistant Commissioner had ordered mutation on the basis of the petitioners’ mother’s 1965 registered sale deed.

Given the material civil proceedings, the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner’s order was erroneous and that the Assistant Commissioner’s order should be restored. The Court did not finally determine the parties’ competing title claims.

It left the private respondents at liberty to establish their rights to the land in accordance with law and thereafter approach the competent revenue authorities for a khata change, if necessary.