Court upheld the validity of a mutation based on an unchallenged registered sale deed, affirming Revenue Officers' obligations to process titles until declared void by a competent court.

ORDER Per: Vinay Saraf, J.

1. Present intra-court appeal has been preferred taking exception to order dated 30.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4216/2021, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2021 passed in Case No.151/Appeal/2020-21 by Revenue Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, was dismissed.

2. With the consent of the parties, arguments were heard for the purpose of final disposal of the appeal.

3. By order dated 01.10.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Damoh, the appeal preferred by the present appellant assailing the order of Tahsildar passed on 22.03.1997 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 09.01.1997 of mutation in respect of land bearing Survey No.83, admeasuring Signature Not Verified

0.80 Hectares, out of 1.44 acres of Village Ladanbag, Patwari Halka No.14, Hirdepur, Tahsil and District Damoh, was allowed.

4. The land was originally owned by the husband of the appellant Late Paramlal Rajak and the mutation was ordered on 22.03.1997 by Tahsildar, Damoh on the basis of sale deed allegedly executed by Late Paramlal Rajak in favour of respondent no.1 Jagdish. The appeal was preferred by the present appellant after the death of Paramlal Rajak on the grounds that in fact the sale deed was not executed by her late husband, she is in possession of the land, her husband was not even competent to execute the sale deed as the land was not partitioned and already mortgaged with Cooperative Society by the father of Paramlal on 02.05.1980 by a registered mortgaged deed. After considering the contentions of the appellant, Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar after condoning the delay of 23 years.

5. Respondent no.1 Jagjeet Wadhwa assailed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer before the Revenue Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Case No.151/Appeal/2020-21, which was allowed by order dated 08.01.2021 on the ground that though in the sale deed the survey number was mentioned as 83 by mistake, but the number was later on changed to 123, however, the boundaries were correctly mentioned in the sale deed and, therefore, the sale deed is valid, effective and the mutation order passed on the basis of sale deed could not be set aside by the Sub-Divisional officer after a period of 23 years. Commissioner's order was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order by learned Single Judge on 30.05.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a serious dispute in respect of the sale deed. Civil suit was also filed to declare the sale deed null and void, which was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the same was Signature Not Verified barred by limitation; however, the appellate court remanded the matter back to the trial court by holding that the issue of limitation is a mixed issue of law and facts and a complete trial is required to decide the said issue. He further submits that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the said sale deed was executed by the late husband of the appellant and the appellant was not in possession; whereas as per the Tahsildar's report submitted before the Commissioner, the possession of the appellant was fortified in the report. He further submits that no sale deed in respect of Survey No.123 was executed, however, the mutation was carried out of Survey No.123, which is having different boundaries. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering that the sale deed is under challenge before the civil court and the appellant and other family members were earlier not aware of the execution of sale deed, therefore, when they came to know about the sale deed and mutation order, the appeal was preferred