- (1.) THIS is a revision application against an appellate decision of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 6-5-1954 in a case relating to mutation proceedings.
(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that Narain Singh applied before the Tehsildar for mutation of his name in place of his deceased father who was the khatedar of the land in dispute. The applicant Jai Narain objected to the grant of mutation on the ground that in the previous settlement the land in dispute stood in the name of the applicant's father and that during the current settlement Narain Singh's father got the land entered in his parcha chakbandi through deceitful means. His objection was overruled by the Tehsildar. He went up in appeal before the Collector and the Additional Commissioner as well, but met with no success. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and have no hesitation in observing that there is no substance in this revision. The applicant's objections to the mutation seem to proceed from wrong notions about the scope of mutation proceedings. Mutation of names by itself does not confer any proprietary right or title upon a person. As observed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in A. I. R. 1926 P. C. 100, proceedings for the mutation of names are not judical proceedings in which title to, and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. Such proceedings are much more in the nature of fiscal enquires instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the claimants in the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be out in occupation of it with the greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid. When a right holder dies his name has to be removed and that of his successor has to be substituted in its place. Mutations of inheritance differ in a very important respect from mutations of transfer. In transfer cases, and specially in disputed ones the point at issue is not only what the new entries shall be but also whether a new entry should be made or not. If in such cases the revenue officer is of the opinion that the alleged facts have not been proved or admitted to have occurred he should refuse the mutation. In cases of inheritance, however a mutation of some sort has to be effected and the rights in devolution must be recorded as belonging to some body else which had hithereto vested in the deceased. It has not beep denied that the opposite party is a son of the deceased and hence prima facie he has a title to have the mutation sanctioned in his name. The applicant may establish his right or title in a competent court but can have no locus standi to object to the mutation of the son's name in place of his deceased father. Before leaving the case I would, however, like to observe that the Tehsildar should not have started separate file for deciding the objections raised by the applicant but should have considered his objections while deciding the mutation itself in a summary manner. The mutation proceedings are not designed for the final settlement of rights as they are concerned merely with the alteration of presumptions. In mutation proceedings revenue officers are required to reach the decision in so far as they are able to do so in summary proceedings as to the disputed title to the land in question. The decision of a mutation is not a final adjudication on a question of title. It is the formal recording of what the Revenue Officers dealing with the case, consider the facts in regard to title. The final adjudication rests with competent courts. The revision is hereby rejected. .;