Ownership transfer of agricultural land cannot rely solely on a Panchayat settlement without proper legal authority.

1. This second appeal under S.100 of C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Appeal No.4A / 15 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Class - II, Gohad in Civil Suit No.94A / 2013.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in short are that the plaintiff and defendant are co - owner of the disputed property and the property could be partitioned, despite of that, authority of partition has been condemned which is illegal because it was agricultural land and as per S.17 (2) (Viii) of Registration Act, 1908 which has override effect on S.17 (1) of the same Act, hence, the registration of partition of agricultural land by Revenue Officer is not necessary. The State Government has framed rules regarding partition of agricultural land and as per R.7, if during partition, co - tenure wants to give his share to another tenure holder, it is permissible, hence, Panchayat has done so under the authority of law but the first appellate Court has got confused from S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act . The first appellate Court failed to appreciate the provision of the Specific Relief Act and wrongly appreciated the case as well as evidence produced before it. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for admission of the second appeal.

3. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.1 / plaintiff has submitted that the mutation was done only on the basis of Panchayat settlement and thereafter transfer was made which is not permissible at law as S.54 of Transfer of the Property Act specifically makes a provision with regard to transfer of property by sale. No mutation could be done only on Panchayat settlement as Panchayat is not having authority to establish the ownership on a land.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is an admitted position in this case that plaintiff and defendant are co - owner of the disputed property. The suit was filed before the trial Court on the basis of Panchayat settlement by which the transfer of immovable property (land) was done, thereafter revenue records were prepared accordingly. There is no provision under M.P.L and Revenue Code with regard to transfer of property (Immovable Property) on the basis of Panchayat Settlement. It is well settled that the revenue authority cannot deal with the matter with regard to ownership. It can only exercise limited jurisdiction vested in it with regard to possession of any property, That means, no ownership right can be created under the garb of the order passed by revenue authorities. It is not pleaded that the disputed property was transferred under the Transfer of Property Act or such transfer was registered under the Registration Act. Hence, the first appellate Court has not erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiff / respondent No.1.

6. In view of the aforesaid matter, this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the same is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merits.

7. No costs.