In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court clarified that revenue records do not determine land ownership titles. The court asserted that a mere mutation of revenue records does not diminish the rightful owners’ claims to their land.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, highlighted that the mutation entry in revenue records serves only fiscal purposes and does not confer any substantive right, title, or interest to the individual mentioned. The court emphasized that in title disputes, simply pointing out deficiencies in the opponent’s title is insufficient. The party initiating a suit for declaration must bear the burden of proving a superior title, a requirement not met in the present case.
The legal dispute involved a piece of land originating from the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954. Under this Act, rights in the land vested in the State of Mysore, allowing Inamdars an opportunity to register as occupants. The controversy arose from differing interpretations of the Commissioner’s order regarding occupancy rights.
The plaintiff claimed that the order favored their vendor, establishing them as the lawful owner. Conversely, the defendant argued that the order granted occupancy rights to their predecessor-in-interest, challenging the plaintiff’s ownership. The High Court, in a second appeal, sided with the plaintiff, leading to the current Supreme Court appeal.
Analyzing Sections 9 and 9A of the Act, the Supreme Court concluded that only a tenant or Inamdar could apply for occupancy rights under Section 9A. The Commissioner’s rejection of the plaintiff’s vendor’s claim indicated the acknowledgment of the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest’s rights.
The Court reiterated the legal principle that a vendor cannot transfer a better title than they possess. In this case, the plaintiff’s vendor, denied title by the Commissioner, could not convey it to the vendee. Revenue records, often cited by the plaintiff, were deemed insufficient as documents of title.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to harmonize the Commissioner’s order with the law rather than relying solely on revenue records. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside.
This ruling underscores the significance of establishing title through credible evidence beyond mere revenue records, setting a precedent for future land ownership disputes.
