SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Gau) 114

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B.L.Hansaria, K.Lahiri, JJ.
Goya Prasad Khemani -Appellant
Versus
Assam Board of Revenue & Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 312 of 1976
Decided On : 18-09-1981

Advocates Appeared:
N.C.Das, S.Huda

Mutation of name in revenue records requires both title and possession of the land. Mere possession is not sufficient.

Headnote:

LAND REVENUE - Mutation of Name - Title and Possession - Condition Precedent - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, Section 53.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's father obtained two registered deeds purporting to convey the land in his favor from the father of Respondent No. 4. He procured field mutation and was entered in the settlement records. However, a title suit against Respondent No. 4 and another was dismissed. Respondent No. 4 and another filed an appeal to the High Court, which was dismissed with a direction to file a civil suit for correction of records. Instead of filing a civil suit, Respondent No. 4 waited for resettlement and applied for cancellation of the petitioner's name and substitution of his name. The application was granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue committed an error of jurisdiction in upholding the order of registration in favor of Respondent No. 4, who had no clear title. The court also held that the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue acted contrary to the direction of the High Court in an earlier appeal, which was binding on the parties, the Revenue authorities, and the Board of Revenue.

Issues: Whether the Revenue authorities can mutate the name of a person only on the basis of the finding that the applicant is in possession of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 53 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, is an enabling provision to grant mutation on fulfillment of two conditions by the applicant: title to the land and possession of the land. No registration or mutation is permissible merely on the strength of possession. Title to the land is an essential prerequisite.

Final Decision: The impugned orders of the Revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue were quashed.

Lahiri, J.-

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the Assam Board o' Revenue dated 6.4.76 in Revenue Appeal No. 20/1974.

2. The bone of contention is 8 B. 1 Lecha of land in patta No. 38(old)/361 and 362 (new) of Digboi town, which stood in the name of Respondent No. 4. Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah. Rangalal Khemani, father of the petitioner, obtained two registered deeds purporting to convey ''the land" in his favour from Bikhow Miah, father of Respondent No 4 and having obtained these deeds, he procured field muta­tion. Sub sequently, there was a resettlement and during the course thereof in 1935, the Settlement Officer entered the name of Rangalal in the settlement records. Rangalal was apparently entitled to obtain possession. He instituted a title suit against Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah for declaration of his title to the land and for recovery of possession or confirma­tion of possession. However, that suit was dismissed. Saraf­uddin and Amir Meah moved Revenue Officer for correction of the revenue records and for sub stitution of their names in place of Rangalal. The prayer was however turned down on the score that it was nothing but an application for correction of records prepared by the Settlement Officer and it was not within the competence of the Deputy Commi­ssioner to correct the records. Against that order, Respon­dent No. 4, Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah preferred an appeal to this High Court. The citation of the decision is R. A. 26 of 1948, Sarafuddin and another vs. Ranglal Khemani, disposed an 9.12.1948. It may be stated that at all relevant time this Court exercised the appellate jurisdic­tion under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, that power has since been transferred to the Board of Revenue. The matter was heard and the appeal was dismisaed by R.F. Lodge, C. J. on 9.12.48 by a speaking order. We are tempted to extract the relevant findings:

"I agree with the courts below that mere substitu­tion of the names of the present appellants (meaning Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah) would not be bring­ing the records into conformity with the decision of the Civil Courts and that for that purpose, the result of a civil suit properly instituted by the present appell­ants must be awaited. 1 also agree that the applica­tion of the present appellants was an application to correct the entries made in the settlement records, and as such, an application has to be made within the period of limitation prescribed in the statute, and as this application has not been made within that period, this appeal ought to be dismissed."

I, therefore, order that this appeal be dismised.

* The bracketed protion is ours. (Emphasis added).

3. It appears clear from the conclusive finding of this Court as far back as on 9.12.48 that the title of Respondent No. 4 Sarafuddin and one Amir Meah was clouded wherefor this Court had to give a clear direction that correction of the records could be possible only after a favourable result in a civil proceeding properly instituted by the present Respondent Sarafuddin and another. The learned Chief Justice held in positive and affirmative manner that the appellant (i.e., the present Respondent No. 4 and one Amir Meah) were to file a civil suit to get a declaration of title in their favour and there after they would be entitled to ask for correction of the revenue records. Now, it appears, that Respondent No. 4 Saraf­uddin and one Amir Meah instead of obeying the direction of this Court in R.A. No. 26/48 (H.C.), found it convenient to wait for resettlement and then to make an application for can­cellation of the name of the petitioner and substitution of Responpent No. 4's name instead. The prayer was granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmed by the Revenue authorities including the learned Assam Board of Revenue.

4. The short point which falls for determination is whether the Revenue authorities can mutate the name of a pers




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top