Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2352 (RAJ)

Bishanswaroop v. Gulkandi (Deceased) through

2009-11-12

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 11.7.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the revision are that during pendency of a revenue suit between the rival parties, the non-petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Section 212 of the Act for grant of temporary injunction in their favour in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer Bayana who rejected the application by his judgment dated 21.7.1998 which was challenged in appeal under Section 225 of the act before Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur who allowed the appeal and restrained attestation of mutation consequent upon the alleged sale deed, by his impugned judgment dated 17.6.1999. The petitioners have preferred the instant revision against the impugned judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners No. 3 & 4 has contended that the non-petitioners-plaintiffs had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act earlier, which was rejected on 25.9.1990; and this order of rejection was upheld upto the Board of Revenue in revision. But the non-petitions-plaintiffs again filed an application under section 212 of the Act which was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. It was submitted that Revenue Appellate Authority illegally allowed the appeal against the order of trial Court and stayed attestation of mutation pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners No 3 & 4. This disputed land stood in the khatedari right of Mst. Hukam Kaur who had sold the disputed land through registered deed to the petitioners No. 3 & 4. A mutation must necessarily be carried out in favour of the purchaser of the land when a khatedar tenant of the land has lawfully sold the land through registered deed. The learned counsel cited 2002 RBJ 543-43, 1996 RRD 587 and 1998 RRD 484 in support of his contention. The non-petitioners-plaintiffs are claiming khatedari right in the disputed land as sub-tenants under Section 19 of the Act. This would be decided only in the main suit. So whatever relief is sought against the existing recorded khatedar can also be sought against the petitioners No. 3 & 4 who are genuine purchasers of the land. The non-petitioners-plaintiffs are claiming khatedari right in the disputed land as sub-tenants under Section 19 of the Act. This would be decided only in the main suit. So whatever relief is sought against the existing recorded khatedar can also be sought against the petitioners No. 3 & 4 who are genuine purchasers of the land. As such the impugned judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority should be set aside and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer Bayana should be upheld. 5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 1 & 2 agreed with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners No. 3 & 4. 6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners-plaintiffs contended that they have claimed khatedari right under Section 19 of the Act against the recorded khatedar. If transfer of land during pendency of a suit is allowed, this would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and litigations. It was also argued that earlier relief under Section 212 of the Act was sought against the recorded khatedar, whereas this time relief is sought against the stranger purchasers of the land by way of staying of the mutation proceeding which has rightly been allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority by him impugned order. Citing 2006 RBJ 366 it was pleaded that mutation proceedings in respect of the disputed land should be stayed when a regular suit is pending with regard to determination of title in the land in dispute. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the judgments of lower courts and gone through the record available on the case file. 8. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 17.6.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority Bharatpur shows that he has simply stayed attestation of mutation in respect of the disputed land till final disposal of the main suit pending before the trial Court. The suit under consideration is about determination of title in respect of the disputed land which is, admittedly, sold during pendency of the suit. If a mutation of the disputed land consequent upon alleged sale is carried out, this would change the khatedars in the middle of the suit. If done so, this would be against the settled principle of lis pendents according to which nature of suit land should not be changed till final disposal of the suit. If a mutation of the disputed land consequent upon alleged sale is carried out, this would change the khatedars in the middle of the suit. If done so, this would be against the settled principle of lis pendents according to which nature of suit land should not be changed till final disposal of the suit. It is clearly held by this Court in 2006 RBJ 366 that when a regular suit about the disputed land between the rival parties- is pending before a competent revenue court, mutation proceedings with regard to the suit land should be stayed till final decision of the court about the title of the land. All the citations as stated above by the learned counsel for the petitioners No. 3 & 4 are about regular mutations which should ordinarily be carried out consequent upon the registered sale deed executed by a khatedar tenant, only when there is no dispute about the title and there is no litigation about determination of title in respect of the disputed land. As such the citations submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in this case which is seriously contested suit about title in the land. 9. It is true that an earlier application filed by the non-petitioners-plaintiff under Section 212 of the Act was rejected qua existing khatedars. But in the instant application the relief is sought against different persons (petitioners No. 3 & 4) who are purchasers of the land and the relief granted by Revenue Appellate Authority is quite limited, i.e., restraining of carrying out of mutation till final disposal of the suit. As such the relief claimed and granted in these two applications are of different nature and against the different parties. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The Revenue Appellate Authority has neither committed jurisdictional error nor committed illegality nor material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment dated 17.6.1999. The revision petition, therefore, fails. 11. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed. Pronounced.