Revenue authorities must give effect to final civil court decrees when updating mutation records.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 2 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 775/4, Kolhar Village.

Although his suit for declaration was dismissed, the first appellate court declared him owner of that extent; the Karnataka High Court dismissed the defendant’s second appeal, and the Supreme Court dismissed the subsequent special leave petition.

After the petitioner sought mutation of the revenue records, the Tahasildar did not act on his representation.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Tahasildar to consider it.

The Tahasildar then rejected the request, citing uncertainty about pending litigation and the petitioner’s failure to produce an 11E sketch.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought entry of his and his brother’s names in the record of rights.

1. Whether the Tahasildar’s rejection of the petitioner’s mutation request on the stated grounds was justified despite the civil court decree declaring the petitioner owner of the land.

2. Whether the Tahasildar could be directed to enter the petitioner’s name in the record of rights in accordance with that decree.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s reasoning applied the principle that a revenue authority considering a mutation request must verify the relevant records and give effect to a subsisting civil court decree concerning ownership; rejection on grounds inconsistent with the materials already produced or without appropriate verification is not justified.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent beyond the constitutional jurisdiction invoked.

The petitioner had produced the prior court orders, culminating in the civil court decree declaring him owner of the specified extent, and the Tahasildar had been directed to consider his representation.

The Court held that the stated concern about pending litigation was not an appropriate basis for rejection in light of those orders.

It also found that requiring an 11E sketch was not proper in the circumstances, since the petitioner’s name had appeared in the revenue records for the relevant extent before the suit.

The Tahasildar was required instead to verify the records and implement the decree.

It directed the Tahasildar to enter the petitioner’s name in accordance with the decree in R.A. No. 8 of 2015, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were ordered.