Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank Loan?

Jojy George Koduvath.

Abstract

Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank Loan?
No, is the answer.

Reasons

# Mutation is only for fiscal purposes.
# It is not a title enquiry.
# Only a summary enquiry is made.
# It is the duty of the Tahsildar to determine the person to pay tax.
# It is the duty of the Revenue Department to keep the accounts up to date.
# No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties.
# The decision does not affect the legal rights of any person.
# The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts.

Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966

In Kerala State, Rule 15 and 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules determines Mutationor transfer of Registry. They read as under:

  • Rule 15 :
  • “With the help of the details furnished in the statement in Form ‘A’ prepared by the Village Officers and such further information as the Tahsildar may receive from parties and village officials at the time of enquiry regarding the fact of possession and enjoyment, payment of tax and other particulars, the Tahsildar shall determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties as it is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) upto date and bring into it the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land.”
  • Rule 16 :
  • “The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.”

Following propositions can be culled out from the very rules of The Transfer of Registry Rules made applicable in the State of Kerala (Rule 15 and 16):

  1. It is the duty of the Tahsildar to determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made.
  2. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) up to date.
  3. It is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department bring into the thandaper accounts (Chitta) the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land.
  4. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties.
  5. Only a summary enquiry is to be made by the Revenue authorities.
  6. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes.
  7. The summary enquiry and the decision thereon do not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases.
  8. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts.
  9. And, pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.

‘Mutation’ Only (Mainly) for Fiscal Purposes; Legal Rights subject to civil court decision

In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 223, it was held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137 it was held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, it was held as under:

  • “6. … 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.” (Quoted in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

In Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49, it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary. (Referred to in: P.  Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.  Patkar, 2023 4 CurCC(SC) 278)

Relevant Court Decisions

Pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground for refusing land tax –

  • Sudan v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 563; Vijayarajan v. Tahsildar, 2013 (2) KLT SN 93 (Referred to in Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN).

Pendency of civil suits cannot be a ground for refusing mutation –

  • Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala, 2010(4) KLT 215, Sudan v. State of Kerala, 2013 (4) KLT 563, and Surney v. Inder Kaur, AIR 1996 SC 2823 (Referred to in Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN); Babu R v. State of Kerala, 2024-7 KHC (SN) 9; 2024-6 KLT 486;
  • 2013 (4) KHC 201).

There was a Bank Loan when the property was transferred. The bank had initiated revenue recovery proceedings. The revenue officials refused to effect mutation. The Court directed Mutation.

  • Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala: 2010 (4) KLT 215 (Referred to in Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer, 2015-3 KLJ 197; 2015-3 KLT(SN); Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village, 2019-4 ILR(Ker) 51; 2019-4 KHC 799; 2019-3 KLT 1012.

Read Also

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment