IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
MV. Abdul Nasir and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Mst. Pitru Begum and ors. - Respondents
CRP(C.R.P. ART.227) No.21 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
A. Guneshwar Sharma, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Babina, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. FA Khalid, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Unisha Rashnee, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Liaquat Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. This Civil Revision petition has been filed seeking the prayers as follows:
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22-02-2021 passed by the Ld. Rev. Tribunal, Manipur in Rev. Revision Case No.4 of 2020.
(c) Consequent to the quashing and setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 22-02-2021 passed by the Ld. Rev. Tribunal, Manipur in Rev. Revision Case No.4 of 2020, the Mutation Orders dated 11-03-2005 passed by the Ld. AS & SO, Imphal East in Mutation order Case No.25/AS & SO/IE/1(Annexure A/3) and the second mutation order dated 26-10-2019 passed by the AS & SO-III in Rev. Misc. (C) No.288/AS & SO-III (Annexure A/10) be quashed and set aside. Further, the partition order dated 26-12-2013 passed by the Ld. SDO, Porompat, Imphal East in Partition Case No. 608 of 2013/SDO(P)IE (Annexure A/6) be also be quashed and set aside;
(d) Allow the Petitioner to raise more points at the time of hearing of the present Petition.
3. Facts and circumstances narrated in the case are that the petitioners’ paternal great grandmother namely Mst. Shamshu Nesha was allotted a piece of homestead land at Mana Ingkhol, Minuthong, Hapta Makha Leikai, Imphal East by the State Government vide allotment Order No. DC(C)/8/717/Rev./79(P) dated 27.06.1979 which has been referred hereto as the Original Land. The Petitioner’s above named great grandmother had 2(two) sons, the first one was called Md. Basir Ali and the second one was called Md. Manao. The elder son, Md. Basir Ali predeceased her mother but left behind a daughter and a son namely Md. Ranjan who is the father of the present Petitioners. The second son of Mst. Shamshu Nesha, i.e, Md. Manao died as a bachelor living no heir. Since the petitioners’ grandfather predeceased his own mother while his younger brother died as a bachelor, the only male heir of Mst. Shamshu Nesha was her only grandson, i.e, Md. Ranjan, the father of the present petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners’ great grandmother Mst. Shamshu Nesha gifted the Original Land to her only grandson, i.e, the Petitioners’ father namely (L) Md. Ranjan. The Original Land gifted to the Petitioner’s father is referred to as the Parent Land.
4. In the meantime, the above-mentioned petitioners’ great grandmother, i.e, Ms. Shamshu Nesha due to her advancing age as well as the deteriorating health condition, hired one woman i.e, the Principal Respondent No.1 to take care and look after her needs and to attend to her call and the Principal Respondent No.1 was made to stay with the Petitioners’ great grandmother at the “Parent Land”. Prior to the petitioners’ great grandmother gifting the parent land to the petitioners’ father, a portion of the Original Land was sold off to one Md. Jahiruddin Hazi by the petitioners’ great grandmother in consultation with the petitioners’ father so as to enable them to construct a housing structure from the proceed of the sale over the Parent Land so as to use both for commercial as well as residential purposes. Since most of the transfer at that time was made verbally or through some katcha agreement, the aforementioned buyer, namely Md. Jahiruddin was also recorded as a Co-pattadar of the Original Land until separated. Later on, making the petitioners’ father the sole owner of the Parent Land and the petitioners’ father Md. Ranjan’s name was entered in the land records of the original land on being gifted the same by the petitioners’ great grandmother and his name along with the aforementioned Md. Jahiruddin Hazi were recorded as co-pattadars of the Original Land until separated and thereafter become the absolute owner and title holder of
Khimji Vidhu –Vs- premier High School AIR 2000 SC 3495; (1999) 9 SCCC 246
The Revenue Tribunal must ensure compliance with statutory requirements in mutation proceedings, retaining jurisdiction to review such orders despite disputes over title.
The court emphasized that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties over the land and that the purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Divisional Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision application and passing the impugned orders, as the power o....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
The court emphasized the importance of proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the need for valid mutations in land disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction must be within a reasonable time, and that mutation does not confer title to the property.
Mutation proceedings - There is no finding recorded either by Appellate Court or by Revisional Court as to who was in actual possession of property in question and therefore liable to pay revenue to ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.