KAKA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMR H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have become the owner of a piece or parcel of land situate at Chamba and numbered as Evacuee Property No. 116 (Chamba) under a deed of conveyance D/-20-11-1967, executed in his favour under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The deed of conveyance is annexed to the petition at Annexure-PB. Consequently, mutation entry No. 1210 was sanctioned on 27-4-1968. Respondent 3 initiated proceedings for the review of mutation which ultimately was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Chamba, on 13-12-1977. Respondent 4 then initiated independent proceedings for the review of the mutation which terminated by an order D/- July 29, 1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, granting permission to review the mutation and ordering review within a specified time limit (Annexure-PD/1). Against the said order the petitioner went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner and then to the Financial Commissioner but without success. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) The effect of the findings recorded by the revenue authorities is that whereas the area allotted to the petitioner by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was 281 sq. yards, the mutation was sanctioned in respect of 468.7 sq. yards. Under the circumstances, the mutation entry was required to be reviewed by deleting the excess land mutated in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) We are unable to persuade ourselves to interfere in writ jurisdiction at the present stage. It is settled law that proceedings for mutation do not relate to title. The findings of the revenue authorities, therefore, with regard to the disputed portion of land cannot affect the title, if any, acquired by the petitioner to the said land. The holding of the revenue authorities would have effect merely for revenue purposes including levy of land revenue and other cesses. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the revenue authorities are not competent to go into the question of title. When the question of title is raised before the revenue authorities by any party and the dispute is serious, the appropriate course for the revenue authorities would be to refer the case to the civil court and not to decide the question of title themselves (State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha AIR 1969 SC 1297). Under the circumstances, the revenue authorities were ill-advised in the present case to enter into the question of title and adjudicate upon the same.