Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 853
[Citation : RLW 2011(2) RJ 1325]
(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
Jeevani (Smt.) Vs. Jassu Ram & Ors. (Dr. Tiwari, M.)
DR. G.K. TIWARI, MEMBER
Jeevani (Smt.)
Versus
Jassu Ram & Ors.
Revision/LR/2328, 2329 and 2330/2007/Churu, decided on 25.08.2011
Rajesh Ved, for Petitioner;
Ajaypal, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Sec. 135 — Attestation of mutation when regular suit is pending — Parties are claiming right and interest in the disputed land on the basis of Will, adoption deed and sale deed — A regular suit filed in the matter in 1999 is pending — Impugned mutations were carried out when there was interim stay — Held — When a regular revenue suit is pending adjudication before the competent court, mutation proceedings should be kept pending till the decision of the suit — The Addl. Divisional Commissioner Committed neither illegality nor any jurisdictional error in quashing all the mutations. (Paras 8 to 10)
Revision petition dismissed.
It has also come to the light that the impugned mutations were carried out while there was an interim stay order with regard to the disputed land by the competent Court. In view of such an interim stay order by a competent Revenue Court these mutation orders should not have been passed. An intricate issue of right and interest claimed by several parties through their respective deeds and documents cannot be decided and adjudicated in summary proceedings of mutations which are of the fiscal nature. It has been consistently held by this Court that when a regular revenue suit is pending adjudication before the competent Revenue Court, mutation proceeding with regard to the suit lands should be kept pending till the decision of the suit. Mutation should be attested only in accordance with the judgment pronounced in the concerned suit. Thus, Additional Divisional Commissioner has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error. (Para 8)
jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 135 & ukekUrjdj.k rLnhd djuk tc fu;fer okn yfEcr gks & i{kdkj olh;r] xksn foys[k ,oa foØ; foys[k ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe esa vf/kdkj ,oa fgr dk nkok dj jgs gS & o"kZ 1999 esa bl fo"k; esa nk;j fu;fer okn yfEcr gS & vk{ksfir ukekUrjdj.k ml le; fd;k x;k tc vUrfje LFkxu vkns'k ykxw Fkk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & tc dksbZ fu;fer jktLo okn l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k U;k; fu.kZ;kFkZ yfEcr gks rks ukekUrjdj.k dh dk;Zokgh rc rd yfEcr j[kh tkuh pkfg;s tc rd fd ml okn dk fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk & vfrfjDr laHkkxh; vk;qDr us lHkh ukekUrjdj.kksa dks vfHk[kf.Mr djus esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ;k vf/kdkfjrk lEcU/kh =qfV ugha dhA ¼in la[;k 8 ls 10½
iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk,a [kkfjt dhA
2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that on death of a khatedar tenant namely Ghisa Ram son of Uda Ram, a mutation No. 483 was opened and attested in favour of Nathmal son of Balu Ram on the basis of sale deed dated 20.5.2003 by Gram Panchayat Malsisar (District Churu). Similarly another mutation No. 484 was attested by Gram Panchayat Malsisar by its order dated 20.5.2003. Likewise two more mutations No. 81 and 485 were attested in favour of Bhagirath Prasad son of Ghisa Ram on the basis of adoption deed, by Gram Panchayat Malsisar vide its order dated 20.8.2003 and 20.5.2003. Mutations, No. 483 and 484 dated 20.5.2003 were challenged in appeal by Jassu Ram under Section 75 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sujangarh. Similarly mutation No. 81 dated 20.8.2003 and mutation No. 485 dated 20.5.2003 were challenged together by Jassu Ram before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sujangarh. Sub-Divisional Officer in all the three appeals filed before him by Jassu Ram did not take any final decision; but stayed the proceedings of appeals in view of the pending revenue suit between the same parties by its judgment dated 7.5.2005, which were challenged by Jassu Ram in second appeal under Section 76 of the Act before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner who partially allowed all the three appeals vide its judgment dated 21.2.2007. Additional Divisional Commissioner set aside the judgments of Sub-Divisional Officer and quashed all the mutation orders (mutation No. 483, 484 and 485 dated 20.5.2003 and mutation No. 81 dated 20.8.2003), and directed Tehsildar, Sujangarh to decide these mutations in accordance with the judgment of the pending revenue suit filed before the competent Revenue Court. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.2.2007 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner the above cited three revision petitions are filed in this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ghisa Ram-khatedar tenant-had sold his khatedari land in favour of Nathu Ram alias Nathmal and Jeevani wife of Nathu Ram alias Nathmal through registered sale deeds pursuant to which relevant mutations were correctly opened and attested by the Gram Panchayat vide its order dated 20.5.2003, and Sub-Divisional Officer rightly did not change these mutations in appeal in view of the pending revenue suit in competent Revenue Court. But Additional Divisional Commissioner erred in setting aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer and mutation orders dated 20.5.2003. Mutation proceedings cannot be kept pending as mutation is a summary fiscal proceeding. So the judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner should be set aside and the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer should be revived.
5. With regard to revision No. 2007/2329, it was contended that one combined appeal was filed before Additional Divisional Commissioner against both the mutations No. 81 dated 20.8.2003 and 485 dated 20.5.2003, whereas two separate appeals should have been filed against these two mutations. Thus a common appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner was misconceived. But Additional Divisional Commissioner illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer as well as two mutation orders of mutations No. 81 and 485. It was also contended that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing by the second Appellate Court. Thus these judgments are passed at the back of the petitioners. As such these revision petitions should be allowed and the impugned judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner should be quashed.
6. Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner cont
