Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ramdev Baba Developers And ... vs Asad Khan on 13 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 (NOC) 462 (M.P.), AIRONLINE 2020 MP 179
Author: Vandana Kasrekar
Bench: Vandana Kasrekar
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE
Single Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar
M.P. No.937/2019
Shri Ramdev Baba Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
District-Vardha (Maharashtra)
vs.
Asad Khan S/o Shri Abdul Haq Shairani, Ratlam
======================================
Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Anubhav Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Sapnesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
======================================
ORDER
(Passed on 13/03/2020) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 09/03/2018 and 05/02/2019 passed by SDO and Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is admittedly the owner and in possession of the land in question purchased by way of registered sale-deed executed in its favour. The petitioner is also recorded owner of the land in question. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for setting-aside the registered sale-deed. The said suit is still pending. During pendency of the suit, respondent filed an application for cancellation of the mutation recorded in the name of petitioner before the Teshildar. The 2 said application was rejected. Thereafter respondent filed an appeal before the SDO. The said appeal was also dismissed. Again the respondent filed an appeal before the SDO against the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was allowed but without deciding the application for condonation of delay. Hence this petition.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary. He submits that respondent has admitted to receive an amount of Rs.1,33,10,000/- from the petitioner stating that the land in dispute was sold for a sum of Rs.3,78,75,000/-, therefore, in view of this admission, it cannot be disputed that even according to the respondent, he had received much more amount than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed as well as in the suit filed by the respondent. He submitted that whether the entire sale consideration was paid or not and whether the registered sale-deed is legal or is void are to be decided by the Competent Civil Court, for which a suit is already pending. He further submitted that the Revenue Authorities/Courts, who does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the registered sale-deed nor can set- aside the registered sale-deed, have acted wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He also added that unless the said civil suit is decided and decreed, neither the registered sale-deed could have considered as null and void nor the mutation could have been cancelled. He prays for quashment of the orders by allowing this petition.
34. Respondent has filed the reply and in the reply, respondent has stated that the respondent executed a sale- deed in favour of the petitioner by which above mentioned land was sold to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.82,10,000/- which was paid by way of a cheque of Rs.79,00,000/- and Rs.3,10,000/- was paid in cash. In the sale-deed it is specifically mentioned that in case of dishonour of this cheque, sale-deed will stand automatically cancelled. Thereafter, again an agreement was entered into between the parties and two cheques of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.39,00,000/- were issued to the respondent by the petitioner in place of a single cheque of Rs.79,00,000/- which was issued at the time of registration of sale-deed. In this agreement also it has been mentioned that if any of these cheques are dishonoured then the sale-deed will be stand automatically cancelled. Upon presentation of these cheques in Bank by the respondent, both the cheques were dishonoured with a note of "insufficient funds". So far as possession is concerned, respondent is in continuous possession of the land in question and is cultivating the same and the possession of the land was never transferred to the petitioner. It came to knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner got mutated their names into the revenue records in place of name of the respondent fraudulently without any information of the same to the respondent and without paying the sale consideration to the respondent. It is argued that as both the cheques issued by the petitioner dishonoured, therefore, as per condition of the sale-deed and agreement sale-deed stands null and void. Since the cheques 4 issued by the petitioner have dishonoured, therefore, the sale- deed stood automatically cancelled. It is further urged that sale-deed stands cancelled by the action of the petitioner, when the cheques issued by him were dishounoured but then also respondent filed civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of registered sale-deed. This suit is pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Ratlam.
5. Learned senior counsel submits that mutation in revenue records is only for the purpose of determination as to from whom the land revenues will be collected and nothing else. Mutation does not confer title of the land. The petitioner got fraudulently mutated his name in the revenue records without information of same to the respondent. Respondent came to know of the same only when he applied for the copies of the Khasra entries and was shocked to see the name of the petitioner instead of his name.
6. Learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance in case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others (2007) 4 SCC 221 and Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others (2019) 3 SCC 191.
7. In light of the aforesaid, learned senior counsel submits that the orders passed by the authorities are in accordance with law, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned senior counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. In the present case, respondent being owner of the land had sold the land in question to the petitioner by executing the 5 registered sale-deed on 29/10/2009 and sale consideration was of Rs.82,10,000/- and handed over the possession of the land in question to the petitioner. The land was duly mutated without any objection in the name of petitioner. Thereafter a lapse of about 7 years, the respondent has filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and to set-aside the registered document stating that the full sale consideration of Rs.82,10,000/- was not paid. The respondent had already filed an application before the Tehsildar for deleting the name of the petitioner and to record the name of respondent. The said application was rejected, thereafter, respondent filed an appeal before SDO alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the order of mutation. Thus, SDO without deciding the application for condonation of delay has allowed the appeal. Thereafter another second appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner, therefore, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
10. In the present case, the Commissioner has rejected the appeal on the ground that the full sale consideration was not paid and therefore, the sale-deed is null and void. It is settled law that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the registered sale-deed as null and void. It is also to be noted that for declaring the said registered sale-deed as null and void, a civil suit has been filed by the respondent, which is pending before the competent Civil Court, therefore, order of the Commissioner is without jurisdiction.
11. In the present case, earlier the respondent had filed an appeal against the order of mutation before the Tehsildar. The 6 said appeal was dismissed by SDO and therefore, second appeal on the same ground was filed before the SDO is not maintainable. The second appeal preferred before the SDO was barred by time, however, the impugned order has been passed without considering or deciding the application for condonation of delay. Thus, the order passed by SDO in second appeal is also illegal.
12. In the present case, the respondent in his reply have admitted that petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,33,10,000/- while the land was sold for Rs.3,78,75,000/-. However, in view of the admission, it cannot be disputed that even according to the respondent, he had received much more amount than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed as well as in the suit filed by the respondent. Apart from it whether the entire sale consideration was paid or not and whether the registered sale-deed is legal or is void are to be decided by the competent Civil Court for which a suit is already pending. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Revenue Authorities who does not have the jurisdiction to decide the validity of the registered sale-deed nor can set-aside the registered sale-deed have acted wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
13. Mutation in revenue records is only for the purpose of determination as to from whom the land revenues will be collected. Mutation does not confer title of the land. However, these revenue entries can be seen only for the purpose of prima facie title over the land. Thus, these revenue entries can be looked into while deciding the matter finally.
14. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders 7 passed by the authorities are illegal and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Orders dated 09/03/2018 and 05/02/2019 passed by SDO, Ratlam and Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain stand quashed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2020.03.13 17:24:53 +05'30'