REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5269 OF 2003

RAJINDER SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. …  RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir on July

29, 2002 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 621 of

1999.  By the said order, the Division Bench of

the  High  Court  allowed  the  appeal  filed  by

respondent No. 2 herein and set aside the order

passed by the single Judge dated November 12,

1998 in Writ Petition No. 457 of 1993.

2. Shortly stated the facts of the case

are  that  one  Makhan  Singh  was  a  Displaced

Person in the year 1947 who settled down in

India in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The

Government of Jammu and Kashmir had taken a

policy  decision  in  the  year  1954  to  allot

agricultural land with a view to rehabilitate

displaced families who were forced to leave the

other side of the border (now Pakistan) in 1947

in the wake of partition and who were holding

land in that area.

3. The  Government,  in  pursuance  of  the

said policy, passed an order being Government

Order  No.  254  of  1965  conferring  ownership

right upon Makhan Singh.  The said order reads

thus:

“The  Government  hereby  grant proprietary  rights  on  the  State lands  in  favour  of  the  displaced persons from non-liberated areas of the  State  who  in  pursuance  of Cabinet order No. 578-C of 1954 or any other order issued prior to the CO  No.  578-C  of  1954  about allotments  in  favour  of  such displaced persons, have been settled on such lands and partly on evacuee

2

lands subject to the condition that the allottees have continuously been holding the land from the date of the  allotment  and  have  been  so recorded.  The  grantees  shall  be liable  to  the  payment  of  land revenue  assessed  at  village  rates according to the class of soil which the land belonged to or has assumed on being cultivated or if there is no village rate available, to such land revenue as may be fixed by the Collector  with  regard  to  the assessment  of  similar  land  in  the assessment circle in which such land is situated and also to the payment of  ceases  and  other  dues  payable under any land for the time being in force.”   

4. Paragraph 15-B(2) of the Cabinet Order

No.  578-C  of  1954  conferred  right  on  the

allottee  as  also  to  the  family  members.  It

reads thus:

“15-B(2)  if  an  allottee  dies  his interest in the allotted land shall devolve  on  other  members  of  his family in whose favour allotment of land  has  been  originally  made  or regularized under these rules and on those who may have become members of the family by way of marriage, birth or  adoption  after  such  allotment excluding  those  who  may  have  died earlier or may have left, the family on account of marriage or adoption.”

3

5. It  appears  that  Makhan  Singh  was

cultivating  the  land  and  was  the  registered

owner  of  the  property.  He  was  conferred

proprietary rights. His name had been entered

in the  Jamabandi of 1966-67. It was Mutation

No.  291  of  Village  Tariara,  Tehsil  Kathua.

Makhan  Singh  was  shown  as  the  original

allottee.

6. In  the year 1981, Makhan Singh died

leaving behind him his sons and daughters. By

an  order  dated  March  13,  1985,  Tehsildar,

Kathua substituted the names of Rajinder Singh

(appellant herein) and Daljit Singh, two sons

of Makhan Singh and effected Mutation No. 428

in Revenue Record.    

7. Being aggrieved by the said entry in

Revenue  Record,  Kuldip  Kaur  and  Balbir  Kaur

(daughters of deceased Makhan Singh) preferred

appeal  before  the  Divisional  Commissioner,

Jammu,  inter  alia,  contending  that  mutation

made in favour of Rajinder Singh and Daljit

Singh (sons) was illegal and the appellants who

4

were daughters of deceased Makhan Singh were

also entitled to the share in the property of

their  deceased  father.  The  Divisional

Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal by

an order dated January 29, 1990 observing that

the succession devolved on two sons Rajinder

Singh and Daljit Singh and daughters had no

share.

8. Balbir  Kaur  preferred  revision

petition  before  the  Financial  Commissioner

against  the  order  passed  by  the  Divisional

Commissioner.  But  the  revision  petition  was

also dismissed by the revisional authority on

March 12, 1991. The review against the said

order also met with the same fate.

9. Balbir Kaur, therefore, filed a Writ

Petition  No.  457  of  1993  for  quashing  and

setting  aside  order  passed  by  the  Financial

Commissioner.  A prayer was made to allow the

writ petition and to cancel mutation effected

in favour of sons of deceased Makhan Singh by

declaring mutation entry null and void.  The

5

learned  single Judge,  however, dismissed  the

writ petition.

10. The order passed by the learned Single

Judge was challenged by filing a Letters Patent

Appeal and as observed above, the appeal was

allowed by the Division Bench setting aside all

orders.  The said order is challenged by the

appellant, son of deceased Makhan Singh in this

Court.

11. Notice  was  issued  by  this  Court  on

December 13, 2002 and interim stay was also

granted on the order of the Division Bench of

the High Court.  Leave was granted on July 25,

2005  and  interim  relief  was  ordered  to

continue.

12. On  April  11,  2008,  as  per  order  of

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, the matter

was  ordered  to  be  placed  for  final  hearing

during  summer  vacation  and  that  is  how  the

matter has been placed before us.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the Division Bench of the High

6

Court was wholly wrong in allowing the Letters

Patent  Appeal  and  setting  aside  the  orders

passed  by  the  Authorities  as  also  by  the

learned single Judge.  It was submitted that

the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong

in applying the provisions of Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 ignoring the relevant provisions of

law i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 as also the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy

Act, 1980.  It was also contended that the view

taken  by  the  Division  Bench  was  not  in

consonance  with  Section  3-A  of  the  Agrarian

Reforms  Act,  Section  67  of  the  Jammu  and

Kashmir Tenancy Act as also Rule 15-B(2) of

Cabinet Order No. 578-C/1954.

14. It  was  urged  that  the  contesting

respondent herein was the daughter of Makhan

Singh,  who  had  already  got  married.  She,

therefore, could not be said to be a ‘member’

of Makhan Singh’s family and was not entitled

to inherit the property under the Jammu and

Kashmir Act.  According to the counsel, the

7

action  taken  by  the  Authorities  under  the

Tenancy Act and the order passed by the learned

Single  Judge  were  legal,  valid  and  in

accordance with law and could not have been

interfered with in Letters Patent Appeal.  It

was,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  impugned

order deserved to be set aside by restoring the

orders passed by the Authorities and confirmed

by the learned Single Judge.

15. The  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents, on the other hand, supported the

order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court  and  submitted  that  it  was  right  in

allowing  the  Letters  Patent  Appeal  and  in

making the order.  This Court in exercise of

the power under Article 136 of the Constitution

may not interfere with the order.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for

the parties, in our opinion, the High Court was

not justified in entering into larger question

in view the controversy before the Authorities

under the Tenancy Act.  From the facts stated

8

above, it is clear that land was allotted to

Makhan  Singh  as  a  Displaced  Person  and  in

Jamabandi 1966-67,  his  name  was  entered.

Mutation was made in his favour by Entry No.

291 on October 19, 1966.  After death of Makhan

Singh  in  1981,  Tehsildar  of  Kathua  entered

names of sons of deceased Makhan Singh vide

Mutation  No.  428.  The  said  action  was

challenged by respondent No. 2 herein (one of

the daughters of Makhan Singh) and her sister

Kuldeep  Kaur.  Their  case  was  that  being

daughters, they were also entitled to inherit

the property.  The Authorities, in our opinion,

unnecessarily entered into question of rights

of parties as to title to the property. 17. It  is  well  settled  that  Revenue

Records confer no title on the party.  It has

been recently held by this Court in Suraj Bhan

& Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors., (2007)

6 SCC 186, that such entries are relevant only

for “fiscal purpose” and substantive rights of

title and of ownership of contesting claimants

9

can be decided only by a competent civil Court

in appropriate proceedings. 18. It  is  clear  from  the  record  that

grievance of respondent No. 2 daughter related

to Mutation entry.  If the Authorities under

the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in

consonance with law, it could have retained the

entry. The inquiry, however, was limited to the

entry in Revenue Records and nothing more. It

had  no  bearing  whatsoever  as  to  right  of

ownership,  inheritance  or  title  to  the

property.  In our  opinion, therefore,  neither

the Authorities under the Tenancy Act nor the

High Court could have entered into question of

ownership, title or inheritance in the present

proceedings and they ought to have decided the

controversy limited to mutation entry in the

Revenue Records.

19. The  present  appeal,  therefore,

deserves to be disposed of by leaving all the

parties  to  take  appropriate  proceedings  in

1

accordance with law in a competent civil Court

so  far  as  substantive  rights  of  ownership,

title or inheritance are concerned.  In view of

the  fact, however,  that certain  observations

have  been  made  and  questions  have  been

considered with regard to rights of sons and

daughters in the property of father under the

Hindu Succession Act as also under the Jammu

and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, we clarify

that  all  those  observations  which  were  not

relevant in view of the limited question before

the Revenue Authorities, would have no effect

in the proceedings before the Civil Court if

such  proceedings  have  been  initiated  in  a

competent Court.

20. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal

by  granting  liberty  to  the  parties  to  take

appropriate  proceedings in  a competent  Civil

Court by making it clear that the observations

made in the orders of Revenue Authorities as

also by the High Court will not come in the way

of  the  parties  in  a  suit  as  and  when

1

proceedings have been initiated for the purpose

of  determination  of  substantive  rights  of

ownership.             

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal

deserves  to  be  allowed  and  is  accordingly

allowed by setting aside the order passed by

the Division Bench and by granting liberty to

the  parties to  take appropriate  proceedings.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the

case, there is no order as to costs.

  ……………………………………………………J.    (C.K. THAKKER)

NEW DELHI,    ……………………………………………………J. JULY 11, 2008.     (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

1