Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a mutation entry made on the basis of a registered sale deed could be cancelled in toto by the revenue authorities, or whether it ought to be continued in the revenue record with a clarification that it would remain subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings.
Analysis: A registered sale deed normally gives rise to a right requiring mutation in the revenue record, while revenue entries serve only fiscal purposes and do not by themselves confer title. The revenue authority cannot finally determine the validity of a transaction under other enactments or adjudicate disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil or statutory forum. At the same time, if the authority finds a prima facie issue of breach under another enactment, the proper course is to retain the mutation entry with an express qualification and leave the underlying dispute to be decided by the competent forum.
Conclusion: The cancellation of the mutation entries in toto was not justified. The entries were directed to continue in the revenue record with a clarification that they would remain subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: A revenue authority dealing with mutation entries based on a registered sale deed may not conclusively adjudicate disputed validity under another enactment, and where such dispute is pending elsewhere, the entry should ordinarily be maintained subject to the outcome of those proceedings.