Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be owners and in possession of property surveyed under no.128/10 of Cavellosim Village, filed an application before the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete for mutation of their names in the record of rights. The respondents filed objections alleging the claim was fabricated. The Joint Mamlatdar, by order dated 29.11.2000, rejected the objections and directed mutation in favor of the petitioners. The respondents appealed to the Deputy Collector, who by order dated 23.09.2009 in Land Revenue Appeal No. 225/2001, set aside the Joint Mamlatdar's order and directed restoration of the earlier entry. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging the Deputy Collector's order and also a notice dated 26.05.2010 issued by the Mamlatdar directing demolition of a structure on the property. The court examined the scope of mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Code, 1968, and held that mutation entries are presumptive evidence of possession but do not determine title. The court found that the Deputy Collector had exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering demolition, as the Land Revenue Code does not confer such power. The court also noted that the respondent's remedy lies in civil court for adjudication of title. Consequently, the court quashed the Deputy Collector's order and the demolition notice, restoring the Joint Mamlatdar's order of mutation in favor of the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Presumptive Evidence - Section 48A of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The court held that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title, but they are presumptive evidence of possession. The Joint Mamlatdar's order directing mutation in favor of the petitioners was upheld as the respondent's objections were not substantiated. (Paras 5-7) B) Land Revenue - Demolition Notice - Jurisdiction - Section 48A of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The court held that the Land Revenue Code does not confer any power on the revenue authorities to order demolition of a structure. The notice dated 26.05.2010 directing demolition was quashed as being without jurisdiction. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 7 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 - The court observed that the bar under Section 7 of the Code applies only to matters expressly or impliedly barred, and a civil suit for title is not barred. The respondent's remedy lies in civil court. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Revenue Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to order demolition of a structure based on mutation proceedings; whether the mutation entry in favor of the petitioners is valid; whether the notice for demolition is sustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed in Land Revenue Appeal No. 225/2001 is quashed and set aside. The notice dated 26.05.2010 is also quashed and set aside. The order of the Joint Mamlatdar dated 29.11.2000 is restored.
Law Points
- Mutation entry is presumptive evidence of possession
- Land Revenue Code does not confer power to order demolition
- Civil court jurisdiction not barred for title disputes
- Notice under Section 48A of LRC must be based on valid mutation entry
