Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mutation order in Smt. Manjula Haque Islam vs The State Of Assam on 21 July, 2011Matching Fragments
47. It is also contended by the respondent No. 7 that mutation does not confer title on anybody. Therefore, the petitioner by obtaining fraudulent mutation in the year 1993 cannot claim ownership over the land on the basis of the said mutation order in Mutation case No. 3424/92-93 and 3425/92-93 which was not instituted by the petitioner, but by other two separate persons.
48. The respondent No. 7 has filed another affidavit in opposition wherein he annexed the final report submitted in CID police station case. One Grindra Narayan Roy, CID Inspector of Police, CID P.S submitted the final report on 7.11.07 stating, inter alia, that it is found to be correct that the accused Mustafa Shahidul Islam (respondent No.7) has purchased the land, there is no illegality or conspiracy or cheating in so purchasing the land. This case is an outcome of misunderstanding between both.
63. His further contention is that the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate the factual and legal position so far the order of mutation dated 23.6.1993 is concerned as on that date or thereafter if anybody is aggrieved by the said order that was the father of the petitioner who was alive upto 20.1.1998 i.e. about nine years from the date of oral gift and five years from the date of mutation of the land in the name of the petitioner and the respondent No.7 never raised his voice during the life time of the father of the petitioner questioning the mutation of the land in her name and admittedly on the date of order of mutation, the respondent No.7 had no relation with the land in question. He was completely stranger and even if for the argument sake, it is admitted that the respondent No.8 might have some grievances in respect of land measuring 1 katta 10 lechas as he was allegedly to have been purchased such plot of land in the year 1984, but the said respondent No. 8 did never challenge either the oral gift made by the father of the petitioner to her and consequent thereto, the title over the W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 land or the order of mutation which was passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1993. The Board of Revenue also failed to consider all those aspects, the learned Counsel submits.
70. But in the instant case, it is admitted position that the land was mutated earlier in favour of the petitioner on the basis of her possession over the land, even if this Court considered that the Revenue authority passed the order of mutation wrongly in favour of the petitioner, then also such order of mutation may entitled the petitioner to get a declaration of title over the land subject to she established W.P (C) 4082 OF 2005 that land in question has been transferred in her favour by the original pattadar by way of adducing evidence as the Civil Court has also the power to cancel the mutation after taking evidence in a suit where the mutation is also challenged.
(1) Whether on the date of order of mutation in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 had/have any cause of right to challenge the order of mutation granted in favour of petitioner;
(2) Whether the order of the Board of Revenue is hit by the provisions of Section 148 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations?
(3) Whether the impugned order is also sustainable due to non-production of relevant Register wherein the relevant order dated 23.6.1993 was passed by the ASO in favour of the petitioner?