On the chronology provided, the steps taken by you are broadly correct and, in fact, you have accumulated a fairly strong documentary record for seeking correction of the revenue entries. The important point now is to prevent the matter from becoming an endless cycle of field enquiries without a final, reasoned order.
Section 50 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (WBLR Act) requires the prescribed authority to maintain the Record-of-Rights by incorporating changes resulting from mutation, inheritance and other recognised causes. The Rules also contemplate correction of the record on the basis of the underlying mutation/order and, where appropriate, local enquiry. (Indian Kanoon)
The facts you have described are particularly significant because the alleged 50% interest of Mr. Das appears to have no supporting source document, according to the RTI response, while the Mother Copy apparently does not support the disputed entry. More importantly, the later PPP mutation reportedly cites a 2012 sale deed which relates to a different Mouza and different parties. If that is established from the certified copy of the deed, it is a substantially stronger issue than a mere clerical discrepancy.
There is also useful judicial support for approaching the BL&LRO for correction under Section 50. In Rinku Maity v. State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court specifically held that Section 50 could be invoked for correction of a Record-of-Rights and directed the BL&LRO to consider the application and pass a reasoned order after hearing the interested parties. (Indian Kanoon)
Your conduct in repeatedly approaching the BL&LRO, DLL&LRO and SDLL&RO, obtaining an RTI response, participating in the hearings, and producing evidence of possession has therefore created a useful record. The fact that the alleged claimant and his heir repeatedly failed to substantiate the disputed entry is also something which should be expressly recorded in the final order.
There is, however, one important distinction which should now be kept very clear. Mutation/revenue records do not themselves create or extinguish title. The revenue authority can correct an erroneous entry, but if Mr. Das ultimately produces a genuine registered conveyance or raises a substantive title dispute, the revenue authority may not be competent to finally adjudicate title. In the present facts, however, you appear to be saying something more basic: there is no genuine source document whatsoever for the disputed entry, and the document subsequently relied upon is demonstrably unrelated to the property. That is precisely why the certified records need to be placed before the BL&LRO/SDLL&RO.
What I would recommend doing now
Since another RI field enquiry has been ordered, do not oppose the enquiry merely because earlier enquiries have already taken place. Instead, use this opportunity to put a complete written record before the RI and insist that the enquiry report specifically addresses the following:
-
The original RS/LR entries showing your father's 100% holding.
-
The 2001 mutation in your favour under Section 50.
-
The Mother Copy and its absence of any entry supporting Mr. Das.
-
The RTI reply expressly stating that no document is available supporting Khatian No. XXX.
-
The earlier RI enquiry and the July 2025 hearing.
-
The failure of Mr. Das/his heirs to produce any title document.
-
The November 2025 amalgamation of AAA and XXX and the resulting impossible 150% share/area.
-
The subsequent creation of Khatian PPP in favour of Mr. Das.
-
The certified copy of the alleged 2012 sale deed, with a clear comparative statement showing the different Mouza, plot, parties and property.
-
Your December 2025 application and the subsequent forwarding by the DLL&LRO/SDLL&RO.
-
The continued absence of any registered deed, mutation order, inheritance document or other lawful source establishing Mr. Das's alleged interest.
-
The continuing possession and cultivation of the property by you/your predecessors.
I would also specifically request that the RI not merely record physical possession, but report upon the documentary source of each disputed entry. A field enquiry can establish possession and local facts, but the central question here is: "By what document and by what order was Mr. Das's name, 50% share and Barga status introduced into the record?"
That question should be answered from the official record.
The PPP mutation requires particular attention
In my view, this is potentially the most important development in your chronology.
You should obtain a certified copy of the complete mutation case file relating to Khatian PPP, rather than relying merely on the computerised Khatian. This should include:
-
mutation application;
-
supporting deed/document;
-
mutation order;
-
notice issued to interested parties;
-
field enquiry report;
-
order sheet;
-
identity documents;
-
document number/year relied upon;
-
the source from which the 50% share and area were calculated.
If the 2012 deed cited in the mutation file is genuinely for another Mouza/property and different parties, make this comparison absolutely explicit in your next representation. The prayer should not merely say "delete the name"; it should say that the mutation itself is unsupported by the document cited as its foundation and therefore requires cancellation/correction after verification of the original mutation record.
Regarding the G.O. dated 17 January 2020
I would also advise caution in relying exclusively upon G.O. No. 213-1S/10/2020 dated 17.01.2020 until we examine the actual text of the Government Order and establish that it directly covers the particular type of erroneous mutation involved here.
The statutory route under Section 50 WBLR Act and the applicable Rules is already available for maintenance/correction of the Record-of-Rights. Section 50 expressly contemplates incorporation of changes and the Rules provide for correction after the relevant orders/documents are examined. (Indian Kanoon)
If the disputed entry forms part of the finally published Record-of-Rights rather than merely a subsequent mutation/computerisation error, the precise statutory route may additionally involve Sections 51A(4), 51BB or the applicable correction mechanism, depending upon the stage and nature of the record. Section 51A(4), for example, permits revision of a finally published entry by the specially empowered officer after hearing interested persons and recording reasons. (Indian Kanoon)
Therefore, the next representation should not unnecessarily restrict itself to one Government Order. It should invoke the appropriate statutory provisions cumulatively, subject to verification of the exact status of the record.
If the BL&LRO continues delaying
This is where I think you should now become more proactive.
After the fresh RI enquiry, submit a final comprehensive representation to the BL&LRO/SDLL&RO requesting a reasoned order within a specified period. Attach an indexed bundle of the documentary evidence and specifically request:
cancellation of Khatian PPP and all consequential entries founded upon the alleged 2012 transaction; deletion of the unsupported 50% share and Barga entries; restoration of the correct 100% share and area in your Khatian AAA; and correction of the computerised Record-of-Rights in conformity with the original authenticated records and lawful mutation orders.
Also request that no further mutation in respect of the disputed plot be permitted on the basis of the impugned entry pending disposal of your correction proceedings, if administratively and legally permissible.
If, after all this, the authority continues merely ordering enquiries without deciding the matter, the appropriate next step would be to consider a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking a direction to the competent revenue authority to dispose of the pending correction/mutation proceedings by a time-bound, reasoned order.
The Calcutta High Court's decision in Rinku Maity is useful in this context because the Court itself directed the BL&LRO to consider the Section 50 application and dispose of it by a reasoned order within a specified period. (Indian Kanoon)
I would not initially ask the High Court to directly declare you the owner or decide the entire title dispute. The cleaner writ relief would be to demonstrate that:
-
your title/possession documents are on record;
-
the disputed entry has no identified documentary foundation;
-
the authority itself has acknowledged through RTI that no supporting document is available;
-
the alleged sale deed relied upon for PPP concerns a different property;
-
repeated enquiries have already taken place;
-
the opposite claimant has failed to produce supporting documents; and
-
despite all this, the authority has not passed a final reasoned decision.
That creates a much stronger case for mandamus directing expeditious disposal.
Overall assessment
On the facts supplied, I would assess your position as procedurally strong, subject to verification of the original certified records. Your biggest advantage is not merely your possession; it is the combination of the historical RS/LR records + 2001 mutation + Mother Copy + RTI admission of absence of supporting document + failure of Mr. Das's heir to produce title documents + apparently unrelated 2012 sale deed.
The immediate objective should therefore be not another general complaint, but a tightly documented application making the RI enquiry answer the documentary-source question and thereafter demanding a final speaking order.
If the BL&LRO still does not decide the matter after the present enquiry, I would seriously consider moving the Calcutta High Court for time-bound disposal, rather than allowing the matter to continue indefinitely at the BL&LRO level.
