Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Graphic Build Com Pvt Ltd vs Smt Sugan Bai & Ors on 21 January, 2014
êN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.34883-34884 OF 2010
M/s. Graphic Build Com Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sugan Bai & Ors. ...Respondents
O R D E R
1. These petitions have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Writ Appeal Nos. 32 and 34 of 2010, by way of which, the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6.7.2009 in Writ Petition No. 3308 of 2009 and order dated 18.12.2009 in Review Petition Nos. 249-250 of 2009 dealing with the mutation entries as decided by the revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that:
A. The land in dispute measuring 2.203 hectares stood in the name of one Rasul Nayta and after his death, the land was mutated in the name of his son Gafoor (respondent no. 6) vide order dated 19.11.1984. A part of the said land was transferred by Gafoor in favour of Sultan vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.1986 and mutation entries were made in his favour.
B. The said vendee Sultan further transferred the land in favour of the present petitioner M/s Graphic Buildcon vide registered sale deed dated 6.7.2005 for consideration and the revenue entries were amended accordingly vide order dated 27.7.2005. C. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. mother and sisters of Gafoor, being the co-sharers, had filed a Civil Suit No. 27/A-06 in the court of the Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore on 24.10.2005 for declaration of the title deed as null and void, which is still pending. D. The respondent No.1 (since deleted) filed a petition before the Tehsildar to mutate her name in place of her husband who had died in 1984 and this petition was rejected vide order dated 19.1.2007 and as that order has not been challenged, it attained finality. E. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 27/A-06, an appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on 14.2.2007 challenging the order dated 19.11.1984 after 22 years of the passing of said order and therein, neither the present petitioner nor his vendor Sultan were impleaded.
In the civil suit, some interim relief was claimed which was not granted though the respondent approached the High Court also in respect of some transactions.
F. An FIR No. 138 of 2007 had been lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) by Gafoor alleging the fabrication of sale deed. G. After investigation, the police filed a closure report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.5.2009. The Revision Petition filed by Gafoor was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 9.11.2010.
H. The Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) challenging the order dated 9.11.2010 was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2011.
I. During the pendency of the earlier Civil Suit and controversies regarding the mutation, the respondent No. 6 Gafoor filed another Civil Suit No. 3A/08 in the court of IVth Sub District Judge, Indore on 16.6.2008 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same land raising the issue that on the date of sale, he was minor and incapable of executing any sale deed in favour of the vendor i.e. the present petitioner. The mutation proceedings were taken up by the Board of Revenue and, ultimately, went before the learned Single Judge as well as before the Division Bench and against the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of mutation proceedings, these petitions have been filed.
3. We have heard Shri V.K. Jhanji, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. So far as the controversies in respect of the revenue entries are concerned, they relate to the sale deeds executed by Gafoor in favour of Sultan, and in respect of the same, two civil suits are pending and the issues of title deeds of the vendor to execute a sale deed are yet to be decided so far as the mutation proceedings are concerned. However, parties had been fighting before the revenue court as well as the Board of Revenue and the High Court regarding the mutation.
5. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1989, dealt with the issue of mutation and held as under:
"123. In this regard, it may also be pertinent to deal with mutation proceedings heavily relied upon by the respondent no.
1. Mutation proceedings are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries. "Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value of title. It only enables the person, in whose favour the mutation is entered, to pay the land revenue in question."
(Vide: Thakur Nirman Singh & Ors. v. Thakur Lal Rudra Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1926 PC 100; Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2823; R.V.E. Venkata Chala Gounder v. Arulmign Ciswesaraswamy & V. Temple & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4548; and Suman Verma v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 57).
Therefore, entries in the revenue record are of no assistance to determine the present controversy."
6. Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that revenue entries are not of any assistance to determine the title of the land, nor such entries can be helpful to adjudicate upon the competence of the vendor or any of the issues involved in the civil suit pending before the court of appeal.
7. In view thereof, we do not think it to be necessary to deal with the issue of mutation as has been decided by the High Court. In such facts and circumstance of the case, these petitions have been disposed of while observing as under:
i. The civil suit pending before the court concerned may be decided as early as possible without being influenced by any observation made by any statutory authority or court in respect of the mutation proceedings or criminal proceedings between the parties.
ii. During the period, till the matter is decided, the petitioner shall not create any third party interest or alienate the suit property.
iii. The mutation entries will follow the outcome of those aforesaid suits and revenue entries shall be made after the disposal of the said suits in accordance with law.
These petitions are disposed of accordingly.
..........................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ..........................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) ..........................................J. (M.Y. EQBAL) New Delhi, January 21, 2014 ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).34883-34884/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 29/09/2010 in WA No.32/2010,WA No.34/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT INDORE) M/S GRAPHIC BUILD COM PVT LTD Petitioner(s) VERSUS SMT SUGAN BAI & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for vacating stay,exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim relief) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) Date: 21/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.K. Jhanji,Sr.Adv.
Mr. D.S. Narula,Sr.Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Iti Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Chhaya Kirti,Adv.
Mr. Puneet Jain,Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv.
Mr. Shashan K. Tripathi,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The special leave petitions are disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
(O.P. Sharma) (Sharda Kapoor)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)