Revenue authorities must give effect to an unstayed civil decree despite a pending appeal.

The petitioner claimed that the land in dispute had been gifted to him by Hiba.

Although the Civil Court initially dismissed his suit for declaration of title, the First Appellate Court declared his title by judgment dated 2 March 2012.

The Additional Tahsildar ordered mutation in his favour on 9 August 2012, but the mutation was later reviewed and set aside because the defendants had not been joined in the mutation proceedings.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

The State submitted that two second appeals against the appellate decree were pending, but no stay of that decree had been brought to the Court’s attention.

Separately, applicants seeking intervention claimed possession of part of the land for 70 years; their application was rejected because they had not established possession or an interest through appropriate legal proceedings.

Whether revenue authorities could set aside mutation granted pursuant to a civil court decree merely because the decree was under challenge in pending second appeals, where no stay had been granted.

Whether applicants claiming long possession, without establishing possession or an interest through appropriate legal proceedings, could intervene in the writ petition.

A decree of a competent civil court remains binding and operative unless stayed, varied, or reversed; the mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not itself stay the decree.

Revenue authorities must give effect to an operative civil court decree for the limited purpose of mutation.

Mutation entries are fiscal in nature and neither create nor extinguish rights, title, or interest in immovable property.

A bare assertion of possession is insufficient to establish an interest warranting intervention; the applicants must establish their possession or interest through appropriate legal proceedings.

The petition was brought under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

The First Appellate Court’s decree declaring the petitioner’s title remained operative, and the State identified no order staying it.

The pending second appeals therefore did not, by themselves, justify the revenue authorities’ review and cancellation of mutation made pursuant to that decree.

The Court accordingly held that the mutation could not be set aside on the stated ground that the defendants had not been parties to the mutation proceedings.

Because mutation is fiscal and does not determine title, the entry was made subject to the outcome of the pending second appeals.

The proposed intervenors’ assertion of long possession, without established possession or interest through appropriate proceedings, did not warrant their participation.

The mutation pursuant to the First Appellate Court’s decree remains subject to the final outcome of Second Appeal Nos. 2080/2026 and 2836/2026, if admitted.

The application for intervention, I.A. No. 18517/2026, was rejected.