- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act. 1951, against an appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kotah, dated 9. 1. 54, reversing the appellate order of the Collector. Kotah, and directing that the mutation in question be rejected.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The salient facts of the case are not much in dispute. The land in question originally belonged to the applicant Ram Chandra who, with a view to have the assessed land revenue reduced got it included in the khata of Dhanna who is now dead and is represented by his son Shanker, opposite party. It is alleged that on 6. 2. 50 Ram Chandra and Shanker arrived at an agreement to the effect that Shanker would have 20 bighas of land entered in the khatedari of Ram Chandra. This agreement was embodied in a document and on the basis of the same the applicant applied for mutation. The Tehsildar granted the same on the ground, the Shanker having once entered into an agreement cannot be allowed to resile from it. The Collector, Kotah, also agreed with this view. The second appellate court however, held that as no possession had actually been transferred and as the document was not registered, no mutation could be granted and the orders of the lower courts were set aside. Hence this revision. Mutation simply means alteration of an entry in the Revenue Records with the object of bringing it upto date so as to mike it represent the facts with regard to the respective rights and liabilities of persons as those existing at present and not as they used to be. The record has, therefore, to conform to the facts that may be proved to have taken place. The extent to which possession is to be regarded as proof for mutation purposes of the correctness of a fact or otherwise depends mainly upon the nature of mutation. In succession cases, for example, mutation of some sort must be effected though a particular claim may be rejected as against the other. In transfer cases and specially in disputed ones the issue is not only what the new entry shall be but whether a new entry shall be made at all or not. The mutation proceedings are not designed for the final settlement of rights. They are conducted in a summary manner having for their object a limited purpose i. e. alteration of record of rights in accordance with the proved facts. Elaborate enquiries or adjudication upon intricate questions of law are, therefore, beyond the scope of mutation proceedings. And naturally in transfer cases where nothing more elaborate than a summary enquiry is necessary to decide whether fact is proved to have occurred or not the best course would be to refuse mutation and refer the parties to courts/explanation II appended to sec. 42 of Revenue Circular No. 3 of the former Kotah State is strictly in accordance with this proposition. It is provided therein that if any khatedar refuses to attest a mutation and where possession is not proved to have been transferred, the mutation ought to be rejected irrespective of the fact whether any document exists or not. In the present case the learned Commissioner has observed that possession has not been proved to have been transferred as alleged by the applicant. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant stated that this finding is against the weight of the evidence on record. I was led through the evidence, but I have no hesitation in observing that the finding of the lower appellate court is perfectly correct. Dhanna, son of Hira, a witness of the applicant himself stated clearly that possession was never transferred in favour of the applicant and that the opposite party continued to remain in possession. Thus it is perfectly clear that no change in possession took place as a result of the alleged agreement and the revenue officer had, therefore, no other option but to reject the mutation. The order of the lower appellate court is, therefore, correct and calls for no interference. The revision is hereby rejected. .;