Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs Smt. Rukma (2024:Rj-Jd:36500-Db) on 3 September, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36500-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 670/2024
Ratan Lal S/o Shri Kalu Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
Chavandiya, Tehsil Begu, District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Rukma W/o Shri Amar Chand Jat, R/o Village
Payara, Tehsil Banera, District Bhilwara.
2. Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Madhu Lal Jat, R/o Daulatpura,
Tehsil Begu, District Chittorgarh.
3. Smt. Anop Bai W/o Shri Amba Lal Jat, R/o
Raghunathpura, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.
4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Begu, District
Chittorgarh.
5. Assistant Collector, (Sub- Divisional Officer) Begu, District
Chittorgarh.
6. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/09/2024
Challenging the order dated 27th March 2024 passed by the
Board of Revenue, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6295/2024 was filed
by the appellant.
2. By an order dated 28th May 2024, the writ Court directed the
parties to maintain status quo as to possession over the subject
land. However, the appellant seems to be aggrieved by the
observations made by the writ Court that if there is any change in
[2024:RJ-JD:36500-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-670/2024]
mutation, that shall be subject to the outcome of Suit No.45 of
2016.
3. Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore, the learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the appellant is in possession over the
subject land and his apprehension is that before the suit is
decided, the purchasers (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) may enter into
further transactions.
4. This is too well settled that mutation proceedings are fiscal
proceedings intended at collecting revenue. The entries in the
revenue records do not confer any right, title or interest on the
person in whose name mutation is recorded. In "Nirman Singh
and others v. Lal Rudra Partab Narain Singh and others" reported
in AIR 1926 PC 100, the Privy Council observed as under:-
"The perusal by their Lordships of the judgment of the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh leads their
Lordships to think that it is to a great degree based on the
mischievous but persistent error that the proceedings for the
mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title
to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are
determined. They are nothing of the kind, as has been
pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee.
They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries
instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of
ascertaining which of the several claimants for the
occupation of certain denominations of immovable property
may be put into occupation of it with the greater confidence
that the revenue for it will be paid."
5. The law laid down by the Privy Council in "Nirman Singh"
seems to have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Following a similar line of reasoning in "State of Gujarat v. Patil
Raghav Natha" (1962) 2 SCC 187, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that wherever a dispute as regards mutation entries is raised,
[2024:RJ-JD:36500-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-670/2024]
the proper course to be followed by the statutory authority shall
be to direct the parties to approach the civil Court.
6. In "Patil Raghav Natha" the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should
not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that
when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the
Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the
appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would
be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide
the question of title himself against the occupant."
7. We find that the learned Single Judge while passing the order
dated 28th May 2024 has issued only such a direction. As regards
apprehension of the appellant that the respondent Nos.2 and 3
may execute further sale deeds, we would only indicate that any
transaction, if any, affected during the pendency of Suit No.45 of
2016 shall be subject lis pendens as incorporated under section 52
of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. Accordingly, the present D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 670/2024 is
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
95-mohit/divya-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
