Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.
Archana, D/o. Surendra Singh Chouhan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Lrs. Of Khana and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 23 Of 2022
Decided On : 21-02-2023
LAND REVENUE - Mutation entry - Does not confer any right, title, or interest in favor of the person - Mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a legal heir of the deceased, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, claiming title to the suit property on the basis of a will executed by the deceased in his favor. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the mutation entry in the revenue record in favor of the petitioner was not sufficient to confer title to the property. The petitioner appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. The petitioner then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the mutation entry in the revenue record does not confer any right, title, or interest in favor of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. The court further held that if there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystallized and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.
Issues: 1. Whether the mutation entry in the revenue record confers any right, title, or interest in favor of the person? 2. Whether the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following precedents: 1. Jitendra Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. MANU/SC/0684/2021 2. Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., (1997) 7 SCC 137 3. Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 4. Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 5. Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12 6. Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 7. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 8. T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 9. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 10. Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 11. Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 12. Suraj Bhan and Ors. Versus Financial Commissioner and Ors. MANU/SC/7303/2007 13. Section 31 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
JUDGMENT :
1- /kkjk 115 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk iqujh{k.kdrkZ izfroknhx.k us fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k 'kkgiqjk] ftyk HkhyokM+k ds }kjk ewy nhokuh nkok la[;k 09@2012 e`rd [kkuk ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k cuke fueZyk nsoh vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2021 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izfroknh la[;k 02 ls 04 dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= varxZr vkns'k 07 fu;e 10 o 11 lifBr /kkjk 151 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dks [kkfjt fd;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj iqujh{k.kdrkZ izfroknhx.k us ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gSA
2- eSaus i{kdkjku~ ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl lquh] vk{ksfir vkns'k ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
3- ;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ izfroknhx.k us ;g rdZ fn;k fd oknh ds vuqlkj ca'khyky us viuh [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj dh iz'uxr Hkwfe dk foØ; fnukad 29-04-1967 dks deyk daoj ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;kA deyk daoj dk nsgkar gks x;k] ftlds dksbZ larku ugha Fkh] blfy, mlds ifr izrki flag us fnukad 12-06-1972 dks iz'uxr laifÙk dk foØ; i= oknh ds i{k esa iathd`r djok;kA oknh ds vuqlkj foØ; i= fnukad 29-04-1967 xqe gks tkus ds dkj.k jktLo vfHkys[k esa ukekarj.k ugha djok;k x;kA deyk daoj o izrki flag dk uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa vafdr ugha gqvkA izrki flag }kjk fu"ikfnr foØ; i= fnukad 12-06-1972 ls oknh dks laifÙk esa dksbZ vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA oknh dks okni= flfoy U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus ls iwoZ jktLo U;k;ky; ls ;g ?kks"k.kk djokuk vko';d gS fd izrki flag iz'uxr Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkj FkkA
mUgksaus ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k fd oknh ds vuqlkj izfroknh la[;k 01 }kjk QthZ ukekarj.k ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k 02 ls 04 dks iz'uxr Hkwfe fnukad 13-02-2012 dks foØ; dhA iz'uxr Hkwfe esa fdls fof/kuqlkj dk'rdkj ekuk tk ldrk gS] bldk fu/kkZj.k l{ke jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA /kkjk 207 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds vuqlkj bl izdkj ds fookn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk flfoy U;k;ky; dks oftZr gSA iz'uxr Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks"k.kk ds mijkar gh okn flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k iks"k.kh; gSA iz'uxr Hkwfe] d`f"k Hkwfe gS] ftldk vHkh rd dksbZ Hkwfe :ikarj.k ugha gqvk gS] blfy, iz'uxr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa vuqrks"k iznku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk dsoy jktLo U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA izfroknh la[;k 01 }kjk izfroknh la[;k 02 ls 04 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= 'kwU;dj.kh; ugha gS cfYd 'kwU; gS] blfy, nkok jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.kh; gS vkSj flfoy U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj oftZr gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fcYdqy vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS] ftls vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa fuEufyf[kr uthjsa is'k dha] ftudk eSaus llEeku voyksdu fd;k %&
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2117/2019: Baga Ram Versus Balkishan @ Balramkishan, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Decided on 16.05.2019.
3. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1644/2012: Lal Singh Jhala Versus Panna Lal, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Decided on 22.08.2016.
4. Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-1270 of 2019: Pyarelal Versus Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Decided on 29.01.2019.
4- ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZx.k oknhx.k us bldk fojks/k fd;k vkSj ;g rdZ fn;k fd ca'khyky ls fnukad 29-04-1967 dks deyk daoj iRuh izrki flag us iz'uxr Hkwfe Ø; dhA deyk daoj ds nsgkar ds ckn ,d ek= mRrjkf/kdkjh mlds ifr izrki flag gSA fnukad 12-06-1972 dks izrki flag us iz'uxr Hkwfe oknh dks foØ; dhA ewy foØ; i= xqe gks x;k] blfy, jktLo vfHkys[k esa Øsrk dk uke vafdr ugha gqvkA izfroknh la[;k 01 us ca'khyky dk QthZ ltjk dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr dj iz'uxr Hkwfe jktLo vfHkys[k esa viuk uke vafdr djokdj izfroknh la[;k 02 ls 04 dks foØ; dhA izrki flag dk uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa vafdr ugha gksus ls izrki flag dk iz'uxr Hkwfe esa fdlh izdkj dk LoRo o vf/kdkj izHkkfor ugha gksrk gSA vpy laifÙk dk varj.k laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e ls 'kkflr gksrk gS] blfy, izrki flag }kjk oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= fnukad 12-06-1972 fof/kekU; gSA foØ; i= dks fujLr fd, tkus dk vf/kdkj dsoy flfoy U;k;ky; dks gSA izfroknh la[;k 01 dk iz'uxr Hkwfe ij dHkh dksbZ dCtk
A contract for the sale of land can be enforced by specific performance even if it is not in writing, if the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract.
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
