DIXIT, MEMBER—This is a complicated case. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2). The land in dispute is in khasra No. 1060 - 10 bigha 6 biswa was initially purchased by the respondent No. 1 and it was transferred in his name vide mutation No.

(3). This land was subsequently sold by the respondent No. 2 to the appellants vide mutation No. 497. The land was further exchanged by the appellant with one Bhanwarlal who is a party in one of the two matters through mutation No. 1431. The sale deed made by respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellant has been challenged by the respondent No. 1 in Civil Court. Mutation No. 497 was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the S.D.O. who set aside the mutation but in his order he failed to mention the correct number of mutation. Instead of 497, he mentioned 234. The S.D.O. in his order stated that the sale was ab initio void because of fragmentation under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(4). In the appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner by respondent No. 1 the decision of the S.D.O. was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been brought.

(5). Learned counsel for the appellant said that firstly, the application before the S.D.O. was brought in after 7 years of the mutation having been decided. A suit challenging the validity of the sale deed was already pending under Section 88, 188 and 83, the point of limitation was not decided by the S.D.O. in spite of an application having been made.

(6). Secondly, Additional Divisional Commissioner, in this decision has taken up point of validity of sale deed which was not raised as there was no cross objection by the applicant/respondents and a suit by the applicant/respondent was already pending.

(7). Thirdly, the errors of adjudication committed by the S.D.O. in making an order of mutation No. 234 instead of mutation 497 were not reflected by the Additional Divisional Commissioner and he pointed out the errors by pronouncing the judgement on the same mutation No. 234.

(8). Fourthly, the validity of the sale-deed cannot be examined in mutation 2003 RBJ page 12, 305 and 392 were cited in support.

(9). Fifthly, the section 42 on the basis of which the S.D.O. held the mutation to be ab initio void had already been rescinded. Not only that the Honble Rajasthan High Court in his decision 1998 RBJ 323 on 8.1.1998 had held that section 42 amendment was retrospective in nature whereas the S.D.O.s judgement was pronounced on 9.8.1998.

(10). Sixthly, when a suit challenging the validity of sale-deed is already pending a mutation made on that basis cannot be challenged, 2003 page 403 and 1985 RRD page 170 were cited in support.

(11). Seventhly, it was argued that if the disputed land is transferred under registered sale-deed mentioning the possession of the land, concellation of mutation is not justified 2002 RRD page 282 was cited in support.

(12). Eighthly, 2003 RBJ 131 was cited and argued that a sale-deed is never ab initio void but is voidable.

(13). Ninthly, the point of limitation has to be adjudicated as per 1998 DNJ 2 Rajasthan 707 and 1999 page 59 and 98.

(14). There is also a second revision in which it was basically argued that the application of section 151/152 of C.P.C. decided in the S.D.O. court in which the number of mutation was changed from mutation No. 234 to 497 is under challenge. It is stated that the applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing and that the application was decided after the appellate court had clearly decided the appeal on merits. 2004 RBJ 14 was cited in support.

(15). Third revision by Ram Niwas challenging the dismissal of an application of Section 212. Counsel for the non-applicant argued that an exchange had already taken place for the mutation No 1431 and the present applicant had no locus standi under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to bring a revision in connection with the land in dispute. He cited 1994 RRD page 616 and 1992 RRD page 364 regarding the mainta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document