Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6) The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court on the ground that the writ petitioners had filed an application for amendment of the writ petition but without deciding the said application, the Writ Court has rendered the impugned judgment. It has been further contended that it was specifically pleaded by the appellant before the Writ Court that a civil suit for partition and injunction is pending between the parties before the Civil Court but the Court while passing the impugned judgment has ignored the contention of the appellant that the writ petition, in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, is not maintainable. It has been further contended that by the time the writ petitioners questioned the order LPA No.19/2021 4|Page dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, the said order had already been implemented by the Tehsildar concerned by passing a fresh order of mutation on 13/15-01/2015 but this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Writ Court. It has been contended that the mutation orders had been passed at the back of mother of the appellant, as such, it could not be stated that the appellant had been callous in challenging the mutation orders. It is also contended that there is no limitation prescribed under the Land Revenue Act for filing a revision petition and on this ground also, the judgment of the Writ Court deserves to be set aside.

9) The other ground that has been urged by the appellant is that the writ petition is not maintainable because of the pendency of a civil suit between the parties. in this regard it is to be noted that the writ petitioners challenged order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, in a revision petition filed by the appellant, whereby the mutation orders issued in their favour were set aside. The proceedings relating to attestation of mutation and proceedings in a partition/injunction suit are different in their scope. So far as the mutation entries are concerned, the same are not the documents of title of the property. These are simply meant for fiscal purpose to enable the Government to collect the revenue. The mutation entries neither create any right, title or interest in the property in favour of a party nor do these entries extinguish any such right of any party. These entries are always subject to the decree of a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the scope of proceedings challenging the mutation entries and a civil suit to establish right and title to a property and seek its partition is entirely different. Therefore, mere pendency of a civil suit between the parties would not make a writ petition, wherein challenge has been laid to the attestation of mutation or setting aside of LPA No.19/2021 6|Page orders of mutation, not maintainable. The contention of the appellant is, therefore, without merit.

18) As already noted, it has been contended by the appellant that the orders of mutation were passed at the back of his predecessor-in- interest, as such, he was not having knowledge about the passing of these orders. A mere statement that the revision petitioner had come to LPA No.19/2021 10 | P a g e know about the mutation orders on a particular date without there being any material to support the same would not offer a ground to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. In the instant case, the mutation orders, which were subject matter of the revision petition, were passed in the year 1945 and the appellant herein chose to challenge these orders only in the year 2013 i.e., after more than six decades. For all these years the entries in the Record of Rights in respect of the land in question were consistently recorded in favour of the writ petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he was not aware of the position reflected in the revenue record for all these decades.

19) The learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue, without dealing with these aspects of the matter, has passed the order setting aside the mutation orders thereby unsettling a long-standing position as reflected in the revenue record in respect of the land in question. The revisional authority has exercised its power without recording any satisfaction as to why it has exercised such power after such a long delay, when the predecessors-in-interest of the revision petitioner had not chosen to challenge the mutation order. Thus, it is a classic case of unreasonable delay in exercise of revisional power. Therefore, the learned Writ Court has rightly quashed the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue.