Record of Rights — RTC, Mutation Register, Patta Book and Disputed Cases — Land Law Notes

Record of Rights — RTC, Mutation Register, Patta Book and Disputed Cases

This is the single most examined topic in the whole subject, and it is also where most students lose easy marks — because they believe a comforting untruth: that the name in the RTC is the name of the owner. Examiners set problem after problem on exactly this. Someone holds the khata (the revenue entry) in his name and struts around as “the owner”, while a person with an unregistered-but-genuine prior sale looks like he has lost. The golden rule that decides all of them is short: an entry in the record of rights is only a fiscal record — it does not create or destroy ownership. Tattoo that on your memory and the problems answer themselves.

What the Record of Rights is

Here is the everyday picture: the Record of Rights (RoR) is the Government’s running register of who holds what land, on what terms, and who pays the revenue. In Karnataka the common form is the RTC — the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops, popularly called the pahani. It bundles several documents: details of the holder, the survey number, the extent and type of soil, the crops grown, the revenue payable, and any tenancies. Its purpose is fiscal and administrative — to help the State tax and manage land — not to be a title deed.

Section 127 requires the Record of Rights to be maintained. Under it, the RoR records:

  1. the names of holders, occupants, owners, mortgagees, landlords, tenants or assignees of the rent/revenue;
  2. the nature and extent of their interests and any conditions or liabilities attached;
  3. the rent or revenue payable by or to them; and
  4. such other particulars as may be prescribed.

A. Mutation — keeping the record current (ss. 128–129)

The record would be useless if it froze on day one, so the Act keeps it updated through mutation (changing the entry when rights change):

  1. Duty to report (s. 128). A person who acquires any right in land — by purchase, gift, inheritance, partition, mortgage, and so on — must report it to the Village Accountant (in practice within the prescribed time). The Village Accountant enters it and gives an acknowledgment.
  2. Registration of mutations and register of disputed cases (s. 129). The reported change is entered in the Mutation Register. If the change is disputed, the entry is posted in the Register of Disputed Cases, and the matter is decided by inquiry (below).
  3. Patta book (s. 129A). The holder is given a patta book — a booklet containing a copy of the record of rights and other prescribed particulars of his land (assessment, payments, cropping) — his personal extract of the record.

B. Disposal of disputed cases

When a mutation is contested, it is not entered as though undisputed. Instead:

  1. the disputed entry goes into the Register of Disputed Cases (s. 129);
  2. the competent revenue officer (Tahsildar/Revenue Officer) holds a summary inquiry, hearing the rival claimants; and
  3. he passes a reasoned order directing which entry is to be made. The order can be carried up in appeal and revision (s. 136).

Because these are fiscal proceedings, the decision settles only whose name goes in the record for revenue purposes — it does not finally decide title, which only a civil court can do.

C. The evidentiary value of an entry (s. 133) — the golden rule

This is the key to every problem:

  1. an entry in the record of rights carries only a presumption of correctness — it is presumed true until the contrary is proved (s. 133);
  2. the presumption is rebuttable: a genuine sale deed, will or partition beats a contrary revenue entry;
  3. entries generally reflect possession, not ownership, and an entry gives the holder no title he does not otherwise have; and
  4. mutation entries in particular are weak evidence and cannot, by themselves, prove a transaction of sale or confer ownership.

Section 133, KLR Act, 1964 (substance): “An entry in the Record of Rights … shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.”

In Simple Terms: The RTC entry is a starting assumption, not the last word. If nobody challenges it, it is taken to be right; but the moment someone produces better proof of ownership — a registered sale, a will, a decree — the entry gives way. The record follows title; title does not follow the record.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the RTC entry vs ownership (the trap in every problem)

The whole family of Unit-3 problems is built on this single confusion:

  • What the RTC/mutation proves — that, for revenue purposes, this is the person the State currently deals with and presumes to be in possession. Nothing more.
  • What it does NOT prove — ownership/title. A person can hold the khata and not own the land; a genuine prior purchaser can own the land and not yet hold the khata.

So a later mutation obtained by a seller’s heirs does not defeat an earlier genuine sale; and a succession mutation cannot be refused merely because the land was once “granted” — inheritance is not a barred “transfer”. Decide these on title and the right to inherit, never on who currently appears in the RTC.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the buyer who never mutated the khata (the Apr 2023 problem)

Facts. B genuinely bought land from S but never got the khata mutated to his name. S died; S’s heir first got the RTC transferred to himself and points to that entry as proof that the land is his. B’s heir now applies to mutate the khata by succession from B. Can B’s heir succeed?

Rule. A record-of-rights/mutation entry only raises a rebuttable presumption (s. 133) and reflects possession, not title; it does not create ownership. A genuine prior sale transfers ownership regardless of the revenue entry.

Apply. The valid sale from S to B transferred ownership to B at the time of sale. S’s heir inherited only what S had left — nothing, because S had already sold it. The RTC now standing in S’s-heir’s name is merely a fiscal entry and does not give him title (the presumption under s. 133 is rebutted by B’s genuine purchase). B’s heir, claiming through B the true owner, is entitled to mutation.

Decoy. The existing RTC entry in S’s-heir’s name looks like proof of ownership — that is the planted trap. It is not; it is only a presumption that B’s sale defeats.

Conclusion. B’s heir succeeds. A later mutation by the vendor’s heir cannot override an earlier genuine sale. (The revenue mutation settles the entry; any residual title fight would go to the civil court, where B’s heir also prevails.)

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — succession mutation of “granted” land refused (the Oct 2023 problem)

Facts. Agricultural land was granted to G and stands in G’s name in the RTC. G dies. Decades later G’s widow applies for a succession khata (pothi/pauti varasu). The revenue authority refuses, saying it is “granted” land and so cannot be mutated.

Rule. A holder’s rights in granted land are heritable; inheritance is not a “transfer”. Mutation is a fiscal step recording a change of holder, and a succession entry cannot be refused merely because the land was granted (the PTCL Act of Unit 4 bars transfers of granted SC/ST land, not inheritance).

Apply. The widow succeeds to G’s holding by operation of law on his death — that is inheritance, not a prohibited transfer. The authority has confused “granted land cannot be sold” with “granted land cannot be inherited”. Refusing the succession mutation is therefore wrong; the authority must record the widow as the successor-holder.

Decoy. “It is granted land, so PTCL blocks the entry” — the framing invites you to apply the transfer prohibition. But succession is not a transfer, so PTCL does not bite.

Conclusion. The widow is entitled to the succession khata. Mere delay does not bar an inheritance mutation, and “granted” status does not defeat succession.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Record of Rights (s.127)<br/>= RTC / pahani (fiscal record)"]:::root
    ROOT --> C["Contents: holder, interest,<br/>revenue payable, survey no., crops"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> M["MUTATION (change of holder)"]:::root
    M --> M1["s.128 report acquisition<br/>to Village Accountant"]:::leaf
    M1 --> M2{"Is the change disputed?"}:::decide
    M2 -->|"No"| M3["s.129 enter in Mutation Register;<br/>s.129A patta book to holder"]:::leaf
    M2 -->|"Yes"| M4["s.129 Register of Disputed Cases;<br/>summary inquiry -> reasoned order<br/>(appeal/revision s.136)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> V["s.133 VALUE: presumption of truth<br/>UNTIL contrary proved — reflects<br/>possession, NOT ownership"]:::warn
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef decide fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#92400E,color:#000;
    classDef warn fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

  • Baburao Adrashappa Birade vs Mallappa Chennappa Birade (1967) — entries in the record of rights ordinarily reflect possession, not ownership; only a person in lawful possession is entitled to have his name entered.
  • Major Pakhar Singh vs State of Punjab (1995) — mutation entries are not admissible as evidence of title; they are fiscal entries and do not by themselves establish ownership.
  • Digambar Adharpatil vs Devram Girdhar Patil (1995) — a record of rights maintained in the ordinary course of official business is nonetheless a reliable piece of evidence on a collateral question (e.g. in a partition suit between brothers), even though it does not conclusively prove title.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Land Law topics

Info

download our exam preparation kit for your exam