The bench which comprised Hon'ble Justice Indu malhotra and Hon'ble Justice Krishna Murari noted that such entries in the revenue record only enable the person in whose favour alteration is recorded to pay the lsnd revenue in respect of the land in question.
In the case of prahlad pradhan V. Sonu kumhar,the contention that was raised by one party was that his predecessor the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the survey settlement of 1964. The suit property was his self acquired. But the bench rejected the said contention and observed :
The said contention is legally misconceived because the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title on the property and also they don't have any presumptive value on the property title. They only enable the person in whose favour alteration is recorded,to pay the land revenue of the land.And merely because of the consequence that mangal kumhar's name was there on the suit property and recorded under the survey settlement of 1964 as a tenant which is recorded in it.It would not make him the sole owner of the property.
The Court in this case mainly referred to the judgment in Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223.
The bench then dismissed the appeal holding that the appelant failed to quote or cite any evidence apart from the survey settlement of 1964 to establish that the suit property was the self acquired one of mangal kumhar.
Relevant judgments :-
1) In Sawarni (Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223
The supreme court held that the mutation of the property in the record does not create or extinguish any title nor does it have any sort of presumptive value on the title.It just enables the person in whose favour land revenue is ordered to pay the land revenue.
2) In Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 591,
The supreme court restated the above position by observing that it is true that the entries in the revenue record cannot create any title of the land.