Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Reference has been made to order of 16/10/1986 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar, cancelling mutation entry bearing no. 498 in respect of suit property and directing to mutate name of Soneri Masjid trust.

6. It is averred that there is old record in respect of suit 5 CRA / 78 / 2016 - JUDGMENT property, particularly, land alienation register of 1886 maintained during the British regime and that the Sub Divisional Officer had concluded that gut no.290 is property of the plaintiff. As such, the suit property came to be registered as wakf property on registration of the trust as wakf with the wakf board.

20. Soneri Masjid Trust had moved proposal for framing scheme in 1961 and it is mentioned therein the trust has no property except the Masjid. The scheme is accepted by the Charity Commissioner by order dated 18/5/1982 and it bears signature of present plaintiff. It is, thus, contended that it would not be a case wherein it can be said that trustees were not aware of suit property, is not true and correct and there is element of falsity in such a claim.

21. It is further alleged that the plaintiff has suppressed proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik against cancellation of mutation entry no.498 by Sub Divisional Officer under order dated 16/10/1986. Cancellation of mutation entry no.498 had been subject matter of challenge at the behest of defendants no.8 to 16, in revision application bearing no.153 of 1992 and, the same had been decided on 25/09/1992 and judgment 10 CRA / 78 / 2016 - JUDGMENT and order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16/10/1986 had been set aside, restoring the names of defendants no.8 to 16 as owners, holders and occupiers of suit property. As such, it is contention on behalf of the defendants, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were unaware of suit property not being a trust property and that it had not been owned by the Soneri Masjid. Suit property has been ancestral property of defendants no.8 to 16. It has been denied that there is old record by way of land alienation register in 1985. It is alleged that the plaintiff had created false documents and that land alienation register does not show gut no. 290 belongs to plaintiff Soneri Masjid. It is contended that it has been held the entry in alienation register is not correct. It is stated that order of deleting suit property from class-III land and converting it into class-1 is confirmed under judgment in 2013 by the revenue State minister.

31. With reference to revenue record particularly, 7/12 extracts, the leaned judge observed from the same which relate to periods from 1940 onwards to 1995, referred to that land survey no.132 admeasuring 15 Acre 15 Guntha is deosthan class III inam land and name of Najmunnissa Begum has been mentioned as holder of land. Further it has been observed that said Najmunnissa Begum had mortgaged survey no.132 to Dharmamalu Konkar and Sitaram Rag Tangel in 1943 and their names are mentioned in other rights column. Thereafter, the learned judge observed that said Najmunnissa Begum had dealt with survey no.132 by registered sale deed dated 25/3/1948 to Mohammed Hussain Shaikh Yusuf and as such, her name came to be deleted by mutation entry no.498 and name of Mohammad Hussain Shaikh Yusuf has been entered by mutation entry no.1116.

34. Mere recording of entries in the name of Mohammed Hussain and after his death in the name of his legal representatives 17 CRA / 78 / 2016 - JUDGMENT i.e. defendants no.9 to 16 in revenue record would not confer ownership on them. It is settled principle that mutation entries are made by revenue authorities for fiscal purposes and they do not confer title or legal status to claim ownership. Therefore, setting aside the judgment and order of the Sub Divisional Officer for recording name of Soneri masjid in respect of suit property by judgment and order of the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in revision by confirming mutation entry recording name of legal representatives of Mohammed Hussain as per entry no.498 did not confer title of ownership to the legal representatives of Mohammad Hussain i.e. defendants no.9 to 16.