Mutation entries cannot be used to decide title or tenancy rights; revenue authorities acted beyond jurisdiction.

Revenue authorities dealing with mutation entries under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code may only record, certify and update fiscal entries, and may consider possession incidentally where necessary. They cannot adjudicate ownership, tenancy or other substantive rights in immovable property, which must be decided by the competent civil or special forum. Orders by appellate or revisional revenue authorities that went beyond this limited inquiry and interfered with mutation supported by a registered sale deed were held to be in excess of jurisdiction and were quashed. Substantive rights were left to be worked out before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue authorities exercising powers under Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 could adjudicate title or tenancy rights while dealing with mutation entries. (ii) Whether the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, which interfered with mutation based on a registered sale deed, were within jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue authorities exercising powers under Sections 149 and 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 could adjudicate title or tenancy rights while dealing with mutation entries.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Sections 149 and 150, read with the relevant rules, confines the revenue inquiry to reporting, recording, and certification of mutation entries. The provisions are intended for updating revenue records and determining questions incidental to mutation, including possession where necessary. They do not confer authority to decide ownership, tenancy, or other substantive rights in immovable property, which remain within the jurisdiction of competent civil or special fora.

Conclusion: The revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate title or tenancy rights in mutation proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner, which interfered with mutation based on a registered sale deed, were within jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioners had produced a registered sale deed in support of mutation. The Tahsildar's action was consistent with the statutory scheme, but the appellate and revisional authorities travelled beyond the limited scope of mutation proceedings by entering into tenancy-related controversies and by ignoring the restricted nature of the inquiry under the Code and Rules. Such interference amounted to a jurisdictional excess and could not stand. The Court also noted that revenue entries are primarily fiscal and do not themselves create title, though they may reflect possession and documentary support for the entry.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the challenged revenue orders were quashed, and the mutation-related position was restored to the extent permitted by the statutory framework, leaving substantive rights to be worked out before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities acting under mutation provisions may record and certify entries and determine possession incidentally, but they cannot decide title or tenancy rights, which must be left to the competent forum.

---