Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Gurudwara Sahib Singhwala v. Sujan Kaur

2003-03-05

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The petitioner has preferred this appeal before District Collector, Sri Ganganagar against the order dated, 22nd December, 1993 passed by the Tehsildar, Sri Ganganagar by which mutation was opened in the name of legal representatives of deceased Tara Singh. According, to the learned counsel for the petitioner, originally the land in dispute was recorded in the name of petitioner Gurudwara Sahibsingh Wala and could not have been recorded in the name of deceased Tara Singh and, after death of Tara Singh, in the name of non-petitioners No.1 to 4 who are legal representatives of Tara Singh. Learned Collector, Sri Ganganagar allowed the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 17th June, 1994 and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar, to inquiry into certain facts. Against the order of the District Collector dated 17th June 1994, one of the respondent Ranjeet Singh preferred appeal before the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner under Section 76 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1950, which was allowed by the, learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner vide order dated 20th August 1996 and order of the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dated 17th June, 1994 was set aside upholding the mutation in favour of the non- petitioners No.1 to 4. Against this order dated 20th August, 1996 of the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, the petitioner preferred revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Revenue Board Vide its order dated 10th June, 1999. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the Board of Revenue as well against the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 10th June, 1999 and 20th August, 1996 preferred the present writ petition. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the land in question could not have been recorded in the name of respondents as the land was Khatedari land of the petitioner Gurudwara Sahibsingh Wala. (4). A bare perusal of the facts reveal that the petitioner challenged the order of mutation dated 22nd December, 1993 which Was opened due to the death of Tara Singh and names of legal representatives of Tara Singh were entered into the Revenue Record in place of Tara Singh. (4). A bare perusal of the facts reveal that the petitioner challenged the order of mutation dated 22nd December, 1993 which Was opened due to the death of Tara Singh and names of legal representatives of Tara Singh were entered into the Revenue Record in place of Tara Singh. Learned Collector set aside the mutation order dated 22nd December, 1993 and remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar to enquire, if the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gurudwara in Samvat Year 2015 to 2018 then how it was recorded in the name of Tara Singh, how T.C. was issued and who is in actual possession of the land in dispute? In appeal against the said order, the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner took note of the fact that a regular revenue suit was pending between the parties, therefore, no finding can be recorded with respect to the fight, title and interest of the parties in the land in dispute and only finding with respect to the legality of the order of the mutation can be given by the Divisional Commissioner. In the said appeal, the Divisional Commissioner also observed that Ranjeet Singh respondent (Appellant before the Divisional Commissioner) and the respondents legal representatives of Tara Singh are in possession of the land in dispute, irrigation slips are issued in the name of,Ranjeet Singh and other L.Rs of Tara Singh and, therefore, the order of the Collector cannot be allowed to stand. The Divisional,Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector dated 17th June, 1994. (5). The petitioner in his writ petition admitted that regular revenue suit between the parties was pending and, therefore, proceedings of mutation should have been stayed. The petitioner stated that the mutation order passed by the Tehsildar should have been set aside. The stand taken by the petitioner is self-contradictory. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that when regular revenue suit was pending between the parties, how any change can be made in the revenue record during pendency of suit? (6). It is relevant to mention here that entire exercise in this matter is outcome of mutation proceedings by which the only entries in revenue records are made. Admittedly, this is fiscal proceeding. (6). It is relevant to mention here that entire exercise in this matter is outcome of mutation proceedings by which the only entries in revenue records are made. Admittedly, this is fiscal proceeding. There appears no justification to make changes in revenue record during the pendency of suit, where only rights of the parties can be determined and consequential entries can be made according to the decision of the competent Court in suit. Result of the. orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 20.8.1996 and order of Board of Revenue dated 16.6.1999 is to. maintain the entries in revenue record as, were in exercise only. Therefore, only on this ground alone, no interference by this Court is required in the impugned orders. (7). This Court by order dated 20.12.1999, directed the petitioner to explain what is the basis of statement of the petitioner that he is in possession the petitioner could not explain till today, how is in possession over the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Goyal submits that he informed the petitioner but has not received, any communication from the petitioner. Be that as it may, the fact remains is that this writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The rights of the parties will be either already decided in the revenue suit which was pending between the parties or may be decided in that suit only. There is no reason for permitting two proceedings parallel to go on, particularly when, there is no justification for continuation of the mutation,"proceedings in view of the pendency of the suit. Mere change in revenue record cannot give any relief to the parties in the case but it will only give birth to new litigation only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass order of mutation in this matter and such mutation can only be attested only by Gram Panchayat. In this respect learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Shyam Lal vs. Budhdan (1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass order of mutation in this matter and such mutation can only be attested only by Gram Panchayat. In this respect learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in case of Shyam Lal vs. Budhdan (1). Without entering into legality of the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar, the law is well settled that this Court even can- refuse to entertain the writ petition against the order which is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction and in view of the facts of this case, this Court find no reasons entertain the writ petition. (8). In view of the above facts and reason given in proceeding paras, this is not a case where this Court should interfere in the orders passed by the Court below and even if no notice was given to the petitioner before passing mutation order by the Tehsildar in the year 1993 in favour of the legal representatives of Tara Singh which can be decided in the suit. The petitioner has not challenged entry in the name of Tara Singh which was made long back. Again, at the cost of repetition,, it can be said that this mutation proceeding is a futile proceeding, particularly in view of the fact that the actual relief cannot be granted to any of the parties in the mutation proceedings when there is a serious dispute with respect to the right, title and interest and with respect to actual physical possession of the land in dispute between. the parties. (9). I do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.