Writ jurisdiction is declined where an efficacious statutory appeal lies against a mutation order.

The petitioners, President and Secretary of the Gauripur Town Kaborsthan Committee, claimed that the Committee had been using a plot measuring 11 Bighas, 2 Kathas and 3 Lessas, covered by old Dag No. 236 under Khatian No. 387, as a graveyard.

The Circle Officer, Gauripur Revenue Circle, had mutated the subject land in favour of the graveyard by order dated 30 November 2020 in Mutation Case No. DSU/GPR/2020-21/1537/FNUT.

On 6 February 2026, respondent nos. 4 and 5, claiming to be power-of-attorney holders of the landowners, applied for cancellation of the mutation.

After issuing notice, the Circle Officer passed an order dated 14 May 2026 cancelling the earlier mutation order.

Meanwhile, respondent nos. 4 and 5 instituted Title Suit No. 35/2026 with an application for temporary injunction.

The petitioners thereafter instituted Title Suit No. 71/2026, claiming title to the subject land on the basis of adverse possession and waqf by user, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The petitioners challenged the Circle Officer’s order under Article 226, contending that it improperly adjudicated title and was passed during the pendency of civil proceedings.

Whether the Circle Officer, by cancelling the earlier mutation in favour of the graveyard, had unlawfully adjudicated the title of the subject land without jurisdiction?

Whether the Circle Officer could recall or cancel the earlier mutation order on the ground that it had allegedly been obtained by fraud?

Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the impugned order was appealable under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886?

Mutation of land in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title and has no presumptive value regarding ownership; it serves primarily a fiscal purpose, namely, enabling collection of land revenue, as held in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) by LRs., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186.

Questions of title, including acquisition of title by adverse possession or waqf by user, must be determined by a competent civil court.

An order obtained by fraud is a nullity and may be challenged at any time in appeal, revision, writ or collateral proceedings; however, determination of whether fraud was committed generally involves disputed questions of fact and evidence.

An appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, and an appeal lies against the impugned order under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that cancellation of the mutation amounted to an adjudication of title.

Since mutation entries do not confer ownership, the Circle Officer’s order did not finally determine whether the graveyard committee or the private respondents held title to the land; that question remained pending before the civil court.

The allegation that the 2020 mutation had been obtained by fraud raised disputed factual issues requiring consideration of documents and evidence, making the writ proceeding inappropriate for deciding the matter.

Further, the impugned order was passed inter partes after hearing both sides and was appealable under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

The availability of an adequate and efficacious statutory appeal therefore justified the High Court’s refusal to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

The issues concerning title, adverse possession, waqf by user and the alleged fraud were left to be determined in the pending civil proceedings or appropriate statutory proceedings.

In view of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 147 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the writ petition was not entertained.

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy.