Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Raj) 860

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sangeet Lodha, J.
Krishna Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13787 of 2013.
Decided On : 28-01-2014

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Shambhoo Singh, Advocate.

Mutation is a fiscal proceeding that does not create any title or right.

Headnote:
MUTATION OF LAND - SECTION 75 OF RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT, 1956 - Mutation is a fiscal proceeding that does not create any title or right. - Mutation entry can be corrected without determining the question of limitation if there is no evidence to support the mutation entry.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, which dismissed his revision petition against the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, declining to interfere with the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Parbatsar, cancelling the mutation of the disputed land made in favor of the petitioner and sanctioning the mutation thereof in favor of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased landowner and therefore, the mutation effected in the name of the respondent, who was the only surviving legal heir of the deceased landowner, was not required to be interfered with.
Issues: 1. Whether the mutation entry can be corrected without determining the question of limitation. 2. Whether the mutation entry made in favor of the petitioner was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Mutation is a fiscal proceeding and it does not create any right or title. 2. If there is no evidence to support the mutation entry, it can be corrected without determining the question of limitation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the order of the Board of Revenue was not infirm, illegal, or jurisdictional.

Judgement Key Points

Key Legal Principles

Mutation entries in revenue records are fiscal proceedings and do not confer any title or right in the property. (!) [17000382110009]
A mutation entry lacking supporting evidence can be corrected or cancelled without determining the issue of limitation. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [17000382110009]

Facts of the Case

The disputed land was originally mutated in the name of Smt. Dariyav Kanwar, the daughter and sole surviving legal heir of late Shri Nahar Singh, following his death. [17000382110001][17000382110004]
The Gram Panchayat Sarpanch initiated proceedings at the instance of the petitioner, Krishna Pal Singh, alleging his adoption by late Shri Nahar Singh, and mutated the land in his favor ex-parte without proper notice or hearing to Smt. Dariyav Kanwar. [17000382110002][17000382110004][17000382110009]
No evidence, documentary or otherwise, was produced to substantiate the claim of adoption of the petitioner by late Shri Nahar Singh. [17000382110004][17000382110005][17000382110007][17000382110009]

Procedural History

Smt. Dariyav Kanwar appealed to the SDO, Parbatsar under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, who cancelled the mutation in favor of the petitioner and restored it in her name due to lack of evidence and absence of hearing opportunity. [17000382110003][17000382110004]
The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer affirmed the SDO's order, noting the ex-parte nature and lack of proof of adoption. [17000382110005]
The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's revision, reiterating that mutation is merely fiscal, does not create rights, and Smt. Dariyav Kanwar required no court declaration as the natural heir. (!) (!) [17000382110006]

Petitioner's Arguments and Court's Response

Petitioner contended that the challenge came after 19 years, requiring limitation determination, and that he had possessed the land and contested ceiling proceedings as adopted son. (!)
Court held that without proof of adoption, correction of mutation was justified; petitioner can seek title declaration in a competent civil court if claiming rights. (!) [17000382110007][17000382110009]

Final Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as the Board of Revenue's order suffered no infirmity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. (!) (!)

JUDGMENT

1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 30.9.13 of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.4.02 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer declining to interfere with the order dated 27.6.01 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Parbatsar, cancelling the mutation of the disputed land made in favour of the petitioner and sanctioning the mutation thereof in favour of the respondent no. 3 herein, stands dismissed.

2. The relevant facts are that the land measuring 159.11 bighas comprising khasra no. 106, 109, 110 to 115, 118, 100 to 105, 91, 92, 20, 107, 108, 136 of village-Madhwa was khatedari land of late Shri Nahar Singh, who was survived by a daughter-Smt. Dariyav Kanwar. After the death of Shri Nahar Singh, the land was entered in the revenue record in the name of her daughter on 31.10.80. However, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhadhota proceeded to draw an order in the following terms:

"Jh ukgjflag ,d lky igys Qksr gks pqdk gSA Qksr gksus okys ds rhu lxs HkkbZ gSaA D;k rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa esa ls nwljs gdnkj ugha gSa tcfd ftlds uke ukekUrj.k [kksyk x;k gS] og 'kknh 'kqnk gS mlds rhu cPps gSa\ mlds ifr dh lEifRr dk C;kSjk ekax dj Lohd`fr ds fy, vkxs is'k gksA
Sd/- ljiap"

3. It is stated that a notice was issued to Dariyav Kanwar but she did not put in appearance and therefore, while proceedings ex-parte against her, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, proceeded to pass an order regarding the succession of late Shri Nahar Singh. It was observed in the order that Ummaid Singh, the brother of Nahar Singh has stated that Krishnapai Singh, his brother's son, was adopted by Late Shri Nahar Singh. The statement made by Shri Ummaid Singh is said to have been confirmed by the persons present and accordingly, presuming Krishnapai Singh to be adopted son of Nahar Singh, vide order dated 23.8.81 passed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Dhadhota, the land was directed to be mutated in the name of Krishnapai Singh, the petitioner herein.

4. The respondent-Dariyav Kanwar coming to know about the passing of the order sanctioning the mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner herein vide entry no. 76 dated 23.8.81 preferred an appeal before the SDO, Parbatsar under Section 75 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

5. The Appellate Authority after due consideration of the material on 1 record, arrived at a categorical finding that there is nothing on record to show that Krishnapai Singh is the adopted son of Nahar Singh and therefore, after death of Nahar Singh, the land deserves to be entered in the name of Smt. Dariyav Kanwar, the only surviving legal heir of Nahar Singh. The Appellate 5 Authority observed that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner herein without giving an opportunity of hearing to Smt. Dariyav Kanwar, the respondent no. 3 herein. Accordingly, the mutation effected in favour of the petitioner herein was ordered to be cancelled and the land was directed to be entered in the name of respondent no. 3 Smt. Dariyav Kanwar.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.01 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer which stood dismissed vide order dated 12.4.02. The Additional Divisional Commissioner after due examination of the record arrived at the finding that the order sanctioning the mutation in favour 15 of the petitioner was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent-Smt. Dariyav Kanwar. The finding arrived at by the SDO in terms that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner herein is adopted son of Nahar Singh, was also affirmed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. 20

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.02 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, which stands. dismissed by the order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document