Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Tejram Hajare and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging mutation entries made in the revenue records in favor of the private respondents. The petitioners claimed that they were the owners and possessors of the suit property and that the mutation entries were illegal. The respondents, who were the legal heirs of Mukund Paunikar, opposed the petition. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that mutation entries do not confer title and that the dispute essentially involved questions of title and possession, which are civil in nature. The court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy for adjudicating such disputed questions of fact. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners to seek their remedy before the civil court. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mutation Entries - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer title and that disputed questions of title and possession must be adjudicated by a civil court. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with mutation entries in revenue records when the dispute involves questions of title and possession.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mutation entry does not confer title
- Civil court is proper forum for title disputes
- Writ jurisdiction not for disputed questions of fact
