Public street title dispute: revenue mutation could not defeat State control over land adjacent to the road.

Revenue mutation entries did not create or transfer title, so the petitioner trust could not rely on them to claim ownership. The court accepted the State's record and covenant-based material showing that the erstwhile ruler's private properties were confined to the palace compound, while the disputed strip lay outside it beside the public road. Applying the broad statutory meaning of "street" and "public street," the court treated the land between the palace boundary wall and the roadway as part of the public street under State control, leaving the petitioner with no enforceable title.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lands in dispute formed part of the public street and Government nazul land, or belonged to the petitioner trust by virtue of mutation entries and the asserted private title of the erstwhile ruler, so as to restrain the State from widening the road or treating the land as encroached upon.

Analysis: The revenue entries relied upon by the petitioner did not establish title. Mutation in revenue records is only for fiscal purposes and does not, by itself, create or transfer ownership. The materials produced by the State, including the covenant-based list of private properties and the revenue record history, showed that the private properties of the erstwhile ruler were confined to the Jai Vilas Palace compound and that the disputed land lay outside the compound, adjacent to the public road. The statutory definitions of "street" and "public street" were broad enough to include the land on either side of the roadway up to the adjoining boundary, and the court found that the land between the boundary wall of the palace and the road was part of the public street under State control.

Conclusion: The disputed land belonged to the Government as part of the public street and the petitioner trust had no enforceable title over it.

---