This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
When property changes hands — by sale, inheritance, gift, partition, or a registered exchange — the transaction itself is completed the moment the sale deed or gift deed is registered, or (for inheritance) the moment succession opens. But the government’s revenue records — the record of rights (Khatauni), the field book (Khasra), and the village map — continue to show the previous holder’s name until a separate administrative step is carried out. That step is mutation, commonly called dakhil kharij (literally, “entering” the new name and “striking off” the old one). In Uttar Pradesh, this process is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (UP Revenue Code), which replaced the earlier UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 and UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
This article explains who must report a change in holding, which officer records it, what happens if the mutation is disputed, and the appeal and revision remedies available if an order goes against a party.
Statutory Framework
Sections 33 to 40 of the UP Revenue Code deal specifically with mutation and correction of the record of rights. Two triggering events are treated separately:
- Succession (inheritance on death) is dealt with under Section 33.
- Transfer — sale, gift, exchange, partition, or a family settlement — is dealt with under Section 34.
Both routes converge into a common mutation process before the Tahsildar under Section 35.
Village-level record work is carried out by revenue functionaries appointed under Section 16 of the Code: the Collector appoints Revenue Inspectors for “the proper supervision, maintenance and correction of the village records,” and separately appoints Lekhpals for “the preparation, maintenance and correction of the village records.” In practice, it is the Lekhpal who typically carries out the spot verification of possession that feeds into the Revenue Inspector’s report, though the Code itself addresses the succession report to the Revenue Inspector, not the Lekhpal.
The Procedure
1. Reporting the succession or transfer
On succession (Section 33(1)): every person who obtains possession of land by succession must submit a report to the Revenue Inspector of the circle where the land is situated, in the prescribed form.
On transfer (Section 34(1)): every person who obtains possession of land by transfer — other than the succession covered by Section 33 — must report the transfer to the Tahsildar of the tahsil where the land is situated. “Transfer” is defined to include a family settlement.
Where the transfer is by a document registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 36(1) additionally requires the registering authority itself to send intimation of the registration to the Tahsildar, independent of the transferee’s own report.
2. Inquiry at the Revenue Inspector stage (succession cases)
Under Section 33(2), on receiving the succession report, the Revenue Inspector must, if the case is not disputed, record the succession directly in the Khatauni; if it is disputed, the Revenue Inspector makes such inquiry as appears necessary and submits a report to the Tahsildar. Section 33(3) allows a person whose name has not been recorded, or who is aggrieved by the Revenue Inspector’s order, to move an application before the Tahsildar.
3. Proclamation, inquiry, and order by the Tahsildar
On receiving a report under Section 33 or Section 34, or on facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, Section 35(1) requires the Tahsildar to issue a proclamation and make the necessary inquiry. If the case is not disputed, the Tahsildar directs the Khatauni to be amended accordingly. If the case is disputed, the Tahsildar decides the dispute and directs the record to be amended if necessary. (A clause that had earlier provided for settlement of disputes “as far as may be, by conciliation between the parties” was omitted by the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2016 [U.P. Act No. 4 of 2016]; the current provision does not contain a separate conciliation step.)
4. Deposit of outstanding land revenue
Section 36(2) bars the recording of a correction under Section 32, a succession under Section 33, or a correction under Section 38 unless the land revenue due up to date on that land has been deposited. Outstanding dues on the land are therefore worth clearing before applying.
5. Bar against suits until the report is made
Section 37 bars any suit or proceeding in a revenue court by a person who has obtained possession by succession or transfer, until that person has made the report required under Section 33 or Section 34, as applicable.
6. Separate route for correcting errors
Mutation on succession or transfer is distinct from correcting a clerical or factual error or omission in the map, Khasra, or Khatauni, which is addressed separately under Section 38: an application goes to the Tahsildar, who inquires and refers the case with a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who decides it after considering objections. Section 38 expressly states that this correction power does not extend to deciding a dispute involving a question of title.
7. Applying online
Uttar Pradesh now also allows an online application for mutation under Section 34 through the state’s dedicated portal, alongside the UP Bhulekh land-records portal, in addition to filing in person before the Tahsildar’s office.
Appeal and Revision
Section 35(2) gives a person aggrieved by the Tahsildar’s order under Section 35(1) a right of appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), to be filed within thirty days of the order.
The current text of Section 35(2) does not provide for a further, second appeal from the SDO’s order. This gap was tested before the Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2024) 8 ILRA 548 (Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:128096, Writ-C No. 11344 of 2024, decided on 5 August 2024 by Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.). The petitioner had challenged a Naib Tahsildar’s mutation order under Section 34 and the SDO’s order affirming it in appeal under Section 35(2), and the State argued that the correct remedy was a revision, not a writ petition. The Court held that the absence of a second appeal against the SDO’s order does not oust the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 210: the SDO’s order, being one against which no further appeal lies, remains subject to revision under Section 210. The Court also traced that Section 210 itself was amended by the 2016 Amendment Act to extend the limitation for a revision application from thirty to sixty days.
In short, the current appellate ladder for a mutation dispute is: Tahsildar’s order (Section 35(1)) → appeal to the SDO (Section 35(2), thirty days) → revision before the Commissioner (Section 210, sixty days) — not a second appeal.
Practical Points
- Mutation does not create or prove title. The Supreme Court has held, in Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 186, that “an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights,” and that such entries serve only a “fiscal purpose,” namely the collection of land revenue. A mutation order under Section 35 similarly does not decide ownership; Section 39 expressly preserves the right of any person to establish title by way of a civil suit, and Section 40 only creates a rebuttable presumption that the entries are true.
- Keep land revenue current. Because Section 36(2) makes payment of outstanding dues a precondition for recording succession or a correction, arrears can hold up an otherwise undisputed mutation.
- File the report promptly. Section 37’s bar on approaching a revenue court until the Section 33/34 report has been made makes early reporting more than a formality.
- Choose the right remedy after an adverse order. An appeal from the Tahsildar’s order lies to the SDO within thirty days; there is no second appeal from the SDO’s order, but a revision lies to the Commissioner under Section 210 within sixty days.
Takeaway
Mutation under the UP Revenue Code, 2006 is a two-track but converging process — a succession report to the Revenue Inspector, or a transfer report to the Tahsildar — that ends in a formal order of the Tahsildar under Section 35, appealable once to the Sub-Divisional Officer and, beyond that, open only to the Commissioner’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 210, as clarified in Mohd. Yasir Ali Khan. What mutation does not do is settle ownership: as the Supreme Court held in Suraj Bhan, revenue entries serve a fiscal purpose, and a title dispute still has to be fought out in a civil suit.
Useful Resources
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — India Code
- Indian Kanoon — Suraj Bhan & Ors vs Financial Commissioner & Ors (2007)
- UP Bhulekh — Land Records Portal
- UP Revenue Department — Online Mutation (Section 34) Application
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.