Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property in question was purchased by the petitioners in the year 2001 from the respondent No.4 namely Kamlesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Jagdev Prasad Nigam vide sale deed dated 14.05.2001 (Annexure-P/1) and on the basis of the said sale deed they moved an application for mutation of their names which got allowed in the year 2004 and accordingly, the revenue records were corrected entering the name of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. An appeal has been preferred in the year 2016 by the respondents No.1 to 3 disputing the mutation made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the property sold to the petitioners by respondent No.4 was a joint family property and the respondent No.4 was one of the co-sharers in the same and he has sold the land in excess of his share and no notice before the mutation had been issued by the revenue authorities to them and as such, that mutation which was executed in favour of the petitioners got set aside. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the present petitioners but that appeal was rejected vide order dated 28.07.2017 (Annexure- P/2) against which a second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code of 1959 was preferred but that appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner against which the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities mainly on the ground that the authorities have not appreciated the existing facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents Annexure-P/4 i.e., the Khasra Panch sala of the year 1994- 95 and 1998-99. In the said documents, entries have been made in respect of the some partition which took place somewhere in the year 1997 showing that 0.324 hectares of land was given to the respondent No.4. He submits that although, the authorities have taken note of the Khasra entries for the respective year 1994-95 to 1998-99 but ignored the material entry regarding the partition of the disputed land. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that the revenue document, i.e., Annexure-P/6 in which the respective share over the property in question has been shown and the land measuring 0.324 hectares is shown to be recorded in the name of the respondent No.4. He submits that in view of the existing circumstances when the revenue authorities have not taken care of the partition which took place between the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4 and also without taking note of the fact that the sale deed got executed in the year 2001 has not been challenged and that the said sale deed was the foundation of mutation made in favour of the petitioners, the orders passed by the revenue authorities including the order impugned are liable to be set aside as the same are illegal and contrary to law.

99. It is apparent that despite taking note of such material facts, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not given any reasoning as to how the mutation which took place on the basis of sale deed can be said to be illegal. He has also not assigned any reason that the documents Annexure-P/4 contained the entries regarding partition. He acted presuming that the facts mentioned by the respondents No.1 to 3 are correct and has not taken note of the impact of the sale deed executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners and when the same has not been assailed by the respondents No.1 to 3 in any competent court for seeking declaration about its illegality. In the order, it is mentioned that while getting the name of the petitioners mutated provisions made under Section 110 of the Code of 1959 have been followed. Although, it does not describe as to what irregularities have been committed by the authorities and in what manner the mentioned rules have not been followed. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner has reiterated the findings given by the Sub-Divisional Officer and rejected the appeal. None of the revenue authorities in the orders passed by them have considered the impact of the sale deed executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioners. It is noteworthy to mention here that the sale deed is a valid document and is the foundation for mutating the name of the holder of the sale deed. If the document of sale is available then the revenue authorities have no option but to mutate the name of the holder of the sale deed in the revenue records and as such, mutation done in favour of the petitioners cannot be set aside unless the sale deed executed in their favour is set aside by any competent court. Thus, in my opinion all the revenue authorities have committed gross and material illegality while setting aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioners which was made on the basis of the sale deed.