1) while considering the issue of actual possession, the revenue authorities under Section 150 of the said Code cannot decide about title to the property or other right to the property of the parties to such dispute

. In fact, Rule 17 of the said Rules deals with and clearly speak of certification of entries in the register of mutation and deciding disputes relating to the mutation in the entries, and not of decision relating to the rights of the parties in or to the properties.

2) It further speaks of fixing the matter for hearing consequent to the objections raised to the entries, in order to decide the dispute for the purpose of certifying the entries and not to decide the rights of parties to the properties.

3) Only other issue which can be dealt with by the revenue authorities under the said provisions of law is the issue of actual possession of the properties. In that respect also, the Revenue Officer acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the said Code while deciding the issue of possession has to give due credence to the documentary evidence and the person having documentary proof of title to the property either in the form of valid and lawful registered deed or a decree of the court, then such person shall be held to be in actual possession.

4) This conclusion is inevitable in view of the provisions of law contained in part D of the said rules and particularly Rule 17 thereof which provides that "The certifying officer shall then hold a summary enquiry and decide each dispute entered in the register of disputed cases on the basis of possession" and further "if a person actually holds properties under a claim of title, he shall be recorded as occupant" and then that "if there is a doubt as to the actual possession, the persons with the strongest title shall be so recorded."

5)It is well settled law that the entries in the revenue records are basically for revenue purposes and do not by themselves constitute title to the property in favour of any person. Such entries can, undoubtedly, be corroborative piece of evidence to establish the certain rights of the parties in relation to property but they themselves cannot create any title in favour of any person in relation to any immovable property.

Dear Client,

Mutation entry of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor does it have any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.

So  no effect of such procedure.

Such things can't be casually done by talathi.  Any such decision is chalengeable and can lead to issues if any fraud takes place.  Writ petition can also be filed by the aggrieved party

Owner of the land can give application to registrar, talathi, tahsildar, collector, revenue department Secretary Maharashtra and revenue ministry regarding above issue at a time and keep all address in To, instead of cc.

These rules do give discretion to the talathi but it has to be exercised while keeping in mind the interests of the landowners. A process of appeal and revision also has been provided.

Regards 

This provision has been  made in law for proving the tenancy or lease rights of the tenant.

If a land is cultivated for years by the tenant  then the cultivation revenue records will show possession of land with the tenant, it will not dismiss the title of the land owner for this reason.