ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.195/2014-15 vide Annexure-A.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA.

3. The subject matter of the captioned writ petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.43 totally measuring 5 acres 37 guntas. It is not in dispute that this land was originally granted in favour of late Sayed Basha s/o Hanif Sab. Out of 5 acres 37 guntas of land, father of respondent No.11 was granted land to an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas. From the records, it is noticed that the original grantee namely late Sayed Basha s/o Hanif Sab, during his lifetime, sold 2 acres 10 guntas in favour of ancestors of respondent Nos.5 to 10 on 27.03.1980. The name of ancestors of respondent Nos.5 to 10 was duly mutated to the revenue records acting on the sale deed obtained by the ancestor of respondent Nos.5 to 10.

4. The dispute in the present case has arisen on account of mischief played by respondent No.11 after the death of original grantee namely late Sayed Basha s/o Hanif Sab. After the death of original grantee namely late Sayed Basha, the respondent No.11 herein got his name mutated to an extent of 3 acres 38 guntas. Based on the extents reflected in the revenue records in the RTC, respondent No.11 again sells 2 acres 18½ guntas in favour of respondent No.13 under registered sale deed dated 20.07.2005. Thereafter, with an oblique motive preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner indicating that some errors have crept in regarding the extents reflected in the column No.3 and column No.9. Respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal vide Annexure-F.

5. Respondent Nos.5 to 7, who are tracing their rights through their ancestors based on 1980 sale deed in respect of portion of the land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas, preferred a revision before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner on verifying the records has noticed that ancestors’ of respondent Nos.5 to 10 have, in fact, purchased 2 acres 10 guntas from the original grantee and therefore, respondent No.11 while securing inheritance katha has made a false claim over the entire extent. The present petitioner pending consideration of the revision before Deputy Commissioner has purchased 1 acre 19½ guntas from respondent No.11. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, while examining the title documents, has relegated the present petitioner to substantiate his title over the petition property by approaching the Civil Court.

6. Having examined these significant details, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, though places reliance on the registered sale deed obtained to an extent of 1 acre 19½ guntas, cannot seek redressal of his grievance in the mutation proceedings. In view of facts narrated by this Court as stated supra, what can be gathered is that original grantee sold 2 acres 10 guntas to ancestors of Respondent Nos.5 to 10 out of total extents granted to him i.e., 3 acres 38 guntas. Therefore, what was retained by the original grantee was roughly 1 acre 28 guntas. It is precisely in this background, respondent No.11 had no saleable title to sell the land measuring 2 acres 18½ guntas in favour of respondent No.13 and 1 acre 19½ guntas in favour of petitioner herein. The mischief is clearly by respondent No.11, who has manipulated the revenue records and has enriched himself by executing the sale deed in favour of respondent No.13 and present petitioner when he had no saleable title in excess of 1 acre 18 guntas.

7. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot question the sale deed obtained by the ancestor of respondent Nos.5 to 10 way back in the year 1980. He has no locus either to question the sale deed or dispute the title of respondent Nos.5 to 10. The ancestors’ of respondent Nos.5 to 10 having purchased the land in 1980, submitted