Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Vikram Hingorani – Appellant
Versus
Durga Shanker Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present review petitions being Review Pet.66/2022 and Review Pet.49/2022, as also the contempt petition, have been filed seeking implementation of the order dated 27th January, 2021 and recall of the corrigendum order dated 16th December, 2021 to order dated 14th December, 2021. The same have been filed by the Land & Development Office (hereinafter, 'L&DO') and other Respondents/their successors-in-interest.
3. The dispute arose out of the Property bearing No.13, Main Road, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'suit property'). The case of the Petitioners is that they, jointly along with the Respondent No.6-Mohan Hingorani, are owners to the extent of 50% in respect of the the said property. The other 50% is owned by the Respondent No.3- Mr. Gautam Tahilramani & Respondent No.4 -Mr. Gul @ George R Tahilramani.
4. The prayers, which were sought in the present writ petition, were as under:
'(a) issue appropriate Writ, Direction and Order setting aside/quashing the Rejection Letter for Mutation No. L&DO/PS3/62952/389 dated 03.05.2019 issued by Deputy Land &Development Officer rejecting the mutat
The court upheld the final decree of partition and directed the execution of the lease deed in favor of the Petitioners, emphasizing the finality of the decree and the L&DO's obligation to comply wit....
The court established that parties cannot be held responsible for dues not attributable to them when determining property rights and executing leases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation of leasehold rights should be carried out in accordance with the final partition decree, and parties are bound by the terms of the Se....
The court held that the mutation of property must be executed according to the final decree of partition without imposing charges from unrelated parties, protecting the rights of the petitioners.
Immovable property transfers require a registered deed; agreements to sell or related documents do not confer title and cannot be used for property mutation.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
An appellate revenue authority, in the interest of justice, may pass consequential directions regarding land mutation to align revenue records with a binding, pre-existing, and unchallenged partition....
Mutation does not confer or extinguish title and is based on possession for revenue purposes. The decree in a civil suit may not necessarily relate to the land in question for the purpose of mutation....
There is a right in favour of a co-owner to perfect his title in respect of a property jointly owned by him and therefore, seek conversion from leasehold to freehold and nutation of the property.
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
