Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.
Som Dutt son of Ram Chand – Appellant
Versus
State th .Joint Financial Commissioner – Respondent
OWP No.1096 of 2018
Decided on : 29-02-2024
Mutation - Land Dispute - Rule 46 of Standing Order 23-A - Section 26 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Rule 46 of Standing Order 23-A and Section 26 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996. It highlighted that mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property, and that the final order passed by the Revenue Officer is subject to any decree or order passed by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased land and obtained a mutation, which was later challenged by the respondent. The matter was sub judice in civil courts, and the Revenue Authorities set aside the mutation based on possession issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation attested on the basis of the sale deed should not have been set aside by the Revenue Authorities without ascertaining the factum of possession of the petitioner on the purchased land.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the mutation, possession of the land, and the authority of the Revenue Officers to set aside the mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property. It emphasized that the final order passed by the Revenue Officer is subject to any decree or order passed by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was quashed, and the mutation attested in favor of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed was upheld, subject to any decree that may be passed by the civil Court in the ongoing civil litigation.
JUDGMENT :
1. An order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner with powers of Financial Commissioner, Revenue [‘FC] in a revision petition titled ‘Som Dutt vs Sansar Chand is subject matter of challenge in this petition.
2. Before I take up the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be desirable.
3. Land in dispute in this case measures 2 kanals and falls in khasra No. 609 min [‘the subject land’]. The Subject land is classified as ‘Gair Mumkin Khud’situate in village Dasgal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu and forms part of shamilat deh. As per the entries made in Jamabandi of 19571958, the subject land is recorded in the possession of the owners of the village as ‘maqbooja malkaan’. The claim of the petitioner, as is projected by him throughout, is that the subject land was purchased by him from one Puran Chand son of KunjLal with possession through a registered Sale Deed dated 07.02.1994 and, accordingly, mutation No. 856 was attested in his favour on 28.11.2001.The petitioner further claims that out of the subject land purchased by him, 2 marlas of land was sold by him to one Anita Sharma wife of Romesh Chander on 14.08.2008 again through a duly registered sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in peaceful possession of the subject land and in the year 2010, the respondent appeared on the scene and challenged the sale deed executed by aforesaid Puran Chand in favour of the petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff, Akhnoor. He submits that initially the Court of learned Munsiff granted an order of status quo, but the same was vacated by the Additional District Judge, Jammu on an appeal preferred by the petitioner.
4. The respondent had sought a decree of declaration from the learned Munsiff to declare the sale deed dated 07.02.1994 as null and void and had placed reliance upon an Agreement to Sell executed by Purcan Chand on 18.12.1993 in favour of the petitioner and the respondent in respect of 01 kanal each of the subject land. This led to the petitioner also filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to throw challenge to the Agreement to sell dated 18.12.1993 relied upon by the respondent. This suit is pending adjudication in the Court of City Judge, Jammu. This Court was further told that both the suits are now consolidated and are at final stage in the Court of City Judge, Jammu. It seems that simultaneously with launching of civil litigation by the parties, an appeal was also filed by the respondent against mutation No.856 dated 28.11.2001 attested on the basis of sale deed executed by Puran Chand in favour of the petitioner.
5. The aforesaid appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer who vide his order dated 27.05.2011 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned mutation and remanded the case to Tehsildar concerned for de novo enquiry and passing fresh orders in presence of the parties. This order of Settlement Officer was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Joint Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which came to be transferred to the Joint Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The said revision petition was considered by the FC who vide order impugned dated 26.04.2018 dismissed the revision petition, thus, upholding the order of Settlement Officer remanding the matter to the Tehsildar concerned for de novo enquiry.
6. In the backdrop of facts narrated above, order dated 26.04.2018 is called in question by the petitioner in this petition. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that a mutation attested on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed cannot be interfered with, t
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property, and the final order passed by the Revenue Officer is s....
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to revisit the validity of the sale deed during mutation proceedings, reaffirming that such matters should be handled by competent legal au....
Mutation proceedings do not confer title, and substantive rights must be established in a competent civil court.
Mutation is for fiscal purpose and does not confer any right and title in favor of anyone. Order passed in mutation proceedings shall not bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of ....
The court upheld the legality of mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act and emphasized the importance of proper authority in attesting mutations.
Once a registered sale deed is executed, revenue entry is required to be mutated on the basis of such sale deed.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title, and jurisdiction to decide title issues lies solely with civil courts.
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
