How to mutate property in municipal and revenue records

Every transfer of immovable property — by a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by a registered gift deed under Sections 122 and 123, by a partition deed, a settlement, an inheritance under personal law, or a court decree — leaves the underlying state record in the name of the previous holder until the new holder applies for mutation. The mutation is the administrative entry of the new name in the revenue record at the Tahsildar's office (the 7/12 extract in Maharashtra, the jamabandi in Punjab and Haryana, the khasra-khatauni in Uttar Pradesh, the Record of Rights and Tenancy Certificate or RTC in Karnataka, the patta in Tamil Nadu) or in the municipal property-tax register (the khata register at the BBMP under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020; the assessment book under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sections 167 and 168; the property-tax roll under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Sections 113 to 119). The procedure is set out in the state revenue codes — the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sections 148 to 150; the UP Revenue Code, 2006; the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sections 128 to 132 — and the equivalent municipal legislation. The Supreme Court in Sawarni v Inder Kaur, AIR 1996 SC 2823 settled the proposition that the mutation entry is a fiscal-administrative record and does not, by itself, confer title — but the new owner still needs it to pay tax in his name, to transfer the electricity and water connection, to support a bank loan, and to obtain an Encumbrance Certificate that reads in his favour. This guide walks the general procedure end to end.

Indian property practice keeps two parallel ledgers running on every parcel of immovable property. The first is the registry of title — the Sub-Registrar's record of the deeds that transfer ownership under the Registration Act, 1908. The second is the record of occupation and fiscal liability — the revenue record at the Tahsildar's office for rural and agricultural land, and the municipal property-tax register for urban land. The first records the legal event of transfer; the second records the administrative consequence — who pays the tax, who is treated as the occupier for revenue collection, whose name will be printed on the official extract. Mutation is the procedural mechanism that synchronises the second ledger with the first. It is a separate step that follows the registered transfer; without it, the Sub-Registrar's record may show that A has sold to B, but the revenue or municipal record continues to show A as the owner, with the practical consequences that follow — the tax bill, the utility account, the loan-eligibility certificate, the e-extract on the state portal — all still issuing in A's name. The transferee who skips mutation is, in effect, holding title that no fiscal authority knows about.

What mutation is, and what it is not

Mutation is the entry of the new owner's name in the state revenue record or the municipal tax register following a transfer of ownership. The Supreme Court has stated the proposition in successive decisions — Sawarni v Inder Kaur, AIR 1996 SC 2823 is the leading authority; Suraj Bhan v Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 followed; Balwant Singh v Daulat Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2719 confirmed; Suman Verma v Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 and Nahar Singh Yadav v Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307 are the more recent reaffirmations. The position is settled — mutation entries are made for fiscal and administrative purposes; they do not adjudicate title; the underlying transfer document (the registered sale deed, the registered gift deed, the partition deed, the probate, the succession certificate) is the source of title; the mutation entry is at most evidence of possession and of the State's recognition of the transferor's representation. Smt Yamuna Bai v State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 1170 had earlier confirmed that revenue entries cannot override a registered deed.

The consequence is that an heir, a buyer, a donee, or a partition-co-sharer who has the underlying registered document but has not yet mutated the record is still the legal owner; conversely, a person whose name appears in the mutation register without the underlying transfer document does not become owner by reason of the entry. Article 300A of the Constitution of India protects property rights against deprivation without authority of law; mutation cannot effect such a deprivation, and a mutation order against a true owner is liable to be set aside in revisional or writ jurisdiction.

Why mutation matters in practice — six concrete reasons

Despite not conferring title, mutation has six practical consequences that make it indispensable. The first is property-tax billing — Sections 113 to 119 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Sections 167 to 168 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 tie the demand for property tax to the name in the assessment book; an unmutated transferee is at risk of arrears building up in the predecessor's name. Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 fixes the annual value of house property to the owner's hand for income-tax purposes; ownership for income-tax assessment ordinarily tracks the municipal record where the registered deed is not adduced. The second is utility transfer — the electricity, water and sewerage authorities require the latest mutation extract before reissuing the connection in the new owner's name. The third is loan eligibility — banks lending against the property under SARFAESI-charged mortgage will not accept the title without the mutation showing the borrower as the recorded owner. The fourth is the Encumbrance Certificate — the EC issued by the Sub-Registrar's office cross-references the mutation register, and an EC dated after the transfer that still shows the predecessor in possession is read as an unresolved title chain. The fifth is the issue of certified extracts on state portals — MahaBhulekh in Maharashtra, IGRSUP in Uttar Pradesh, KAVERI 2.0 read with Bhoomi in Karnataka, the Patta-Chitta service in Tamil Nadu — all generate the extract from the post-mutation state, and an unmutated holding is not retrievable on the portal in the new owner's name. The sixth is the buyer's diligence trail at the next transfer — a prospective buyer scanning the title chain expects each link to be supported by a corresponding mutation entry; a break in the chain is the most common reason a transaction stalls at the due-diligence stage.

Two parallel record systems — revenue and municipal

The mutation regime in India runs on two parallel tracks, each governed by its own legislation and each maintained by a separate authority.

The first track is the state revenue record, governed by the state Land Revenue Codes for agricultural, peri-urban and rural land. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 Sections 148 to 150 provide for the maintenance of the record of rights and the mutation register; the 7/12 extract (the Saat-Baara) is the printed output of these registers. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — which consolidated the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and several other revenue statutes into a single code — governs the khasra (the survey plot register) and the khatauni (the holding register) in Uttar Pradesh. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sections 128 to 132 govern the Record of Rights and Tenancy Certificate (RTC) and the procedure for mutation. The Tamil Nadu Revenue Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order No. 23, govern the issuance of the patta and chitta. The Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 governs the rural belt within the Delhi NCT. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (the latter still applicable in Punjab and Haryana) govern the jamabandi.

The second track is the municipal property-tax register, governed by the municipal Acts for urban property. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 Sections 167 and 168 govern the transfer of name in the BMC's assessment book. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Sections 113 to 119 govern the corresponding procedure in the MCD area; the Delhi New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 covers the NDMC area. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 governs the BBMP khata register in Bengaluru — the "A khata" being the regularised entry, the "B khata" being the conditional or unauthorised entry that the BBMP maintains separately. The Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 governs the Chennai corporation register; the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 governs the Kolkata corporation register. Each of these municipal Acts contains its own application form, fee schedule and appellate procedure.

The boundary between the two regimes is jurisdictional — agricultural and rural land falls within the revenue regime; urban property within the limits of a municipal corporation falls within the municipal regime; properties in transition zones (peri-urban areas under conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use) frequently appear in both registers, and the transferee is then required to apply for mutation in both.

The triggering documents — what mutation follows

Mutation is not a free-standing right; it follows a triggering transfer document. Six classes of triggering documents are common.

The first is a registered sale deed executed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and registered under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The buyer applies for mutation on the strength of the sale deed, the prior owner's tax-paid receipts, and proof of identity. The second is a registered gift deed under Sections 122 and 123 of the TPA, 1882 — the donee applies for mutation; the consideration column shows "love and affection". The third is a registered partition deed or family settlement deed, where the co-sharers apply jointly for entry of their respective shares. The fourth is a will admitted to probate under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 — mutation follows the probate in the case of testators in the metro-area presidency towns where probate is mandatory, and in other cases follows the will itself with the supporting documents. The fifth is a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or letters of administration under Section 219, where the inheritance is to debts and securities and the immovable property is being mutated in parallel; for the practical procedure on inheritance-based mutation, see our separate guide on getting your name on inherited property — the mutation process. The sixth is a court decree — a decree of specific performance under Sections 10 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a decree of partition, or a decree of declaration of title — produced as the foundation for the mutation application.

The registration of the underlying transfer document is the crucial pre-condition. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes the registration of a non-testamentary instrument transferring an interest in immovable property of Rs 100 or more compulsory; Section 49 supplies the consequence that an unregistered instrument cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property. A mutation application supported only by an unregistered sale deed or an agreement-to-sell will be rejected — the doctrine of Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt Ltd v State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 is the controlling authority on the inadequacy of the SA-GPA-WILL bundle for transfer of title, and the revenue and municipal authorities apply the same threshold.

The procedure — the sequenced playbook

The general mutation procedure has eight steps, common in substance across the state revenue codes and the municipal Acts though the form-names and fees vary.

The first step is the preparation of the application. The applicant fills the prescribed form — for example, Form A-1 under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with the relevant rules; the equivalent form under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; the prescribed e-form on IGRSUP for Uttar Pradesh; the Property Tax Mutation Application before the BBMP in Bengaluru; the M-1 form before the Mumbai BMC. The application names the transferor and the transferee, identifies the property by survey number or municipal house number, attaches the registered transfer deed, the prior owner's last-paid tax receipt, identity proof and address proof.

The second step is submission, in person or online. Online portals are now the default in most states — MahaBhulekh accepts mutation filings for the 7/12; IGRSUP accepts them for UP; KAVERI 2.0 in conjunction with Bhoomi handles the Karnataka filings; the Tamil Nadu eservices portal handles the Patta-Chitta updates; Delhi's e-District portal handles the rural revenue mutations in the Delhi NCT; the municipal corporations (BBMP, BMC, MCD, GHMC) each have their own online windows.

The third step is the issue of a public notice. The revenue officer or the assessor publishes a notice — at the panchayat or municipal office and, in many states, in the local gazette — calling for objections within a stated period (typically 15 days for municipal mutations and 30 days for revenue mutations). The notice is served on adjoining holders and on any person whose name appears in the existing record as a co-sharer or encumbrancer.

The fourth step is the objection window. Any person claiming a competing interest may file an objection in the prescribed form. Common objections include — a co-heir claiming that the application has been filed without his consent; a mortgagee asserting that the property is subject to a subsisting charge; an executing court holding the property under attachment; a co-sharer disputing the partition. Where no objection is received, the matter proceeds to entry; where an objection is filed, a hearing is held.

The fifth step is the hearing. The revenue officer (the Tahsildar, Talathi, Patwari, Village Accountant or the equivalent designation) or the municipal Assessor conducts a quasi-judicial hearing. The parties produce documentary evidence — the registered deed, the EC, the previous mutation entries, the tax-paid receipts. The hearing is summary; the officer is not required to adjudicate title, and where a substantial title dispute emerges, the officer is bound to defer the mutation and direct the parties to a civil court.

The sixth step is the mutation order. The officer passes a reasoned order — either allowing the mutation, rejecting it, or recording the entry as "disputed" pending a civil court's decision. The order is communicated to the parties and recorded in the mutation register.

The seventh step is the entry. The clerk responsible for the record of rights or the assessment book makes the entry on the strength of the order. The new 7/12 extract, the new khata, the new RTC, the new patta, the new jamabandi, the new property-tax bill — all now print in the transferee's name.

The eighth step is the issue of the certified extract. The applicant obtains a certified copy of the updated extract from the Sub-Registrar's office or the municipal office, which serves as the proof of mutation for subsequent transactions, utility transfers and loan applications.

The appellate ladder — when the mutation is contested

Each state revenue code and each municipal Act provides for a tiered appeal against a mutation order. The first appeal in the revenue regime typically lies to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Officer (the Prant Officer in Maharashtra, the Assistant Commissioner in Karnataka, the SDM in UP). The second appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner or the District Collector. A revision lies to the Board of Revenue (in the states that retain the Board) or to the Commissioner of the Division. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked only after the statutory remedies are exhausted, in line with the doctrine of alternate remedy laid down in repeated Supreme Court authority.

In the municipal regime, the appeal lies to the designated municipal appellate authority (typically the Municipal Commissioner or the Deputy Municipal Commissioner), then to a Tribunal or Court constituted under the municipal Act (the Small Causes Court hears Section 217 references under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; the Municipal Tribunal hears appeals from the Delhi MCD), and finally to the High Court on substantial questions of law.

Where the mutation has been obtained ex parte — typically by a competing claimant who has filed without notice to the rightful holder — the rightful holder's remedy is to apply for review or recall to the same officer, citing fraud or material non-disclosure, and to follow with an appeal if review is refused. Nahar Singh Yadav v Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307 is the leading authority on the limits of mutation entries and the propriety of judicial intervention where the entries are arbitrary.

Online mutation in 2026 — the state portals

State-level e-governance has digitised the bulk of the mutation workflow. The principal portals in active use in 2026 are MahaBhulekh (Maharashtra) for the 7/12 and 8A extracts; the IGRSUP portal (Uttar Pradesh) operated by the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps for the khasra-khatauni; the KAVERI 2.0 portal (Karnataka) integrated with the Bhoomi land-records system for the RTC; the BBMP property-tax portal for the urban khata-transfer in Bengaluru; the Tamil Nadu eservices Patta-Chitta portal; the Telangana Dharani portal; the Andhra Pradesh Webland portal; the Madhya Pradesh CM Bhu-Adhikar Rin Pustika portal; the Delhi e-District portal for revenue mutations in rural Delhi and the Delhi MCD and NDMC portals for urban mutations in the capital.

The online filing reduces the calendar time but does not change the substantive law — the documentary requirements, the public-notice and objection windows, and the quasi-judicial hearing all continue. The principal practical advantage is the tracking of the application stage by stage and the avoidance of the broker layer that traditionally interceded between the citizen and the Patwari.

Mutation versus title — the Sawarni line

The most-cited proposition in the mutation jurisprudence is that the mutation entry is not a title-conferring act. The Supreme Court in Sawarni v Inder Kaur, AIR 1996 SC 2823 stated the position in plain terms — "mutation of a property in revenue records does not create or extinguish title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question." The proposition has been reiterated in Suraj Bhan v Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186; in Balwant Singh v Daulat Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2719; in Suman Verma v Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; and most recently in Nahar Singh Yadav v Union of India, (2011) 1 SCC 307. Smt Yamuna Bai v State of UP, AIR 1985 SC 1170 had recorded the earlier statement of the same principle.

The corollary is that disputes over title are not resolved by mutation proceedings — they are resolved in a civil court on a suit for declaration of title, supported where necessary by Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for an injunction restraining the mutation until the title is adjudicated. A revenue officer or a municipal assessor who attempts to decide title on a mutation application acts beyond jurisdiction.

The reverse corollary — equally settled — is that an entry obtained on a defective application cannot be sustained against the true owner, and that the rightful holder may invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside a manifestly erroneous mutation order even after the limitation for statutory appeal has run, where the order is shown to be fraudulent or vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Failure modes — what commonly goes wrong

Three failure modes recur in the mutation practice and merit the applicant's attention.

The first is the ex-parte mutation obtained by a competing claimant. A co-heir or a third-party claimant files a mutation application without notice to the other heirs; the public notice is published but does not reach the others; the entry is made and the bona-fide owner discovers it on a subsequent attempt to access the portal. The remedy is review and appeal, supported by a civil suit for declaration if the disputed title justifies independent litigation.

The second is the missed Encumbrance Certificate cross-check. The municipal or revenue authority records the mutation, but the EC issued by the Sub-Registrar's office continues to show a subsisting mortgage or charge that was not disclosed. The transferee who proceeds on the strength of the mutation alone, without an EC, may find that he has acquired the property subject to the undisclosed charge. The doctrine of constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 supplies that the transferee is taken to have knowledge of facts that ordinary care would have revealed; the omission to obtain the EC is treated as wilful abstention from inquiry.

The third is the disputed-entry stalemate. Where the mutation officer records the entry as "disputed" pending a civil court order, the property goes into a procedural limbo — tax bills continue to issue but no transfer can be effected, and the dispute frequently persists across many years. The remedy is a civil suit on the disputed point, with a specific prayer for direction to the revenue or municipal authority to mutate the record in conformity with the eventual decree.

A fourth, narrower failure mode arises in the BBMP "A khata vs B khata" distinction in Bengaluru — a B khata entry is conditional, reflects irregularities in the underlying conversion or approval, and does not support a clean title transfer; the holder must seek conversion to A khata before resale.

Where this leaves the transferee

Mutation is the routine administrative end-stage of every property transfer in India. The transferee should treat it as part of the same transaction package as the sale deed, the gift deed or the partition deed — to be filed within weeks, not years, of the underlying registered document. The procedure is mechanical, the cost is modest (state-specific fees, typically a small percentage of the consideration or a fixed schedule for municipal cases), and the consequences of skipping it are cumulative — arrears in the predecessor's name, unauthorised utility billings, the EC reading against the new owner, the loan stuck at the bank, and the next transfer stalled at the due-diligence stage. The legal position is settled — the registered deed is the source of title; the mutation is the source of fiscal recognition; the two are independent and complementary; Sawarni v Inder Kaur draws the line. The applicant's task is to file promptly, to produce a clean registered deed, to monitor the public-notice and objection window, and to follow through to the issuance of the updated extract on the relevant portal.