Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 604 (RAJ)

Aanudi v. Dhanni Devi

2009-02-25

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') against the impugned judgment dated 30.10.03 of Additional Division Commissioner, Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are the Tehsildar Shri Madhopur, Sikar attested mutation No. 463 dated 12.11.1999 pursuant to a registered sale-deed of the disputed land. The mutation order dated 12.11.1999 was assailed under Section 75 of the Act in first appeal by the petitioners before Additional Collector Sikar who by his judgment dated 18.11.2002 dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned mutation No. 463, aggrieved against which the petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 76 of the Act before Additional Divisional Commissioner, who by his impugned judgment dated 30.10.2003 dismissed the second appeal. Hence the revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the disputed land was sold to the petitioners through unregistered sale deed on 2.5.1992 before alleged registered sale deed of the year 1999. Consequent upon this unregistered sale deed possession of the land was also handed over to the petitioners. It was argued that there was no proper enquiry about the possession on the disputed land which is in favour of the petitioners. There is already a regular suit pending before the revenue court wherein rights of the parties would be decided, the same cannot be decided through this mutation which should be cancelled and orders of both the lower Courts should be quashed. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioners the learned counsel for the non-petitioners has pleaded that both the lower Courts have given concurrent findings which cannot be interfered with in revision. The non-petitioners have purchased the disputed land through registered sale deed pursuant to which mutation is attested after proper enquiry of the possession. But alleged unauthorised sale deed has no legal value vis-a-vis registered sale deed executed in favour of the non-petitioners. Citing 1994 RRD 22 it was argued that handing over of the possession is stated in the registered sale-deed which should be presumed to be true. Additionally the Patwari and Inspector Land Records have also verified the possession of the non-petitioners on the disputed land. A recorded khatedar is entitled to sell his share of the land which has been done in this case. Additionally the Patwari and Inspector Land Records have also verified the possession of the non-petitioners on the disputed land. A recorded khatedar is entitled to sell his share of the land which has been done in this case. Citing 1992 RRD 226 it was argued that mutation cannot be stopped. It is also pleaded that mutation is a summary proceeding in which rights are not decided. There is regular suit pending before the trial Court in which rights and title would be decided as such nothing is required to be done further in this case and concurrent judgments of both the lower Courts should be upheld. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgments of both the lower courts and gone through the record available on the file. 7. Rival parties claim right and interest in the disputed land based on purchase of the disputed land. Whereas the petitioners are claiming right and interest in the land on the basis of alleged unregistered sale deed/agreement to sale allegedly made on 2.5.1992, the non-petitioners on the other hand are claiming rights and interest in the disputed land on the basis of the registered sale deed executed on 4.11.1999. It is foregone fact that no right or title vests through unregistered sale deed or agreement to sale which can only be used for enforcing specific performance of the alleged sale through competent civil Court. When a registered sale deed is pitted against an unregistered sale deed/agreement to sale with regard to the same disputed land, it is manifestly, registered sale-deed which will prevail over the unregistered sale deed or agreement to sale. Perusal of the impugned mutation No. 463 shows that concerned revenue functionaries-Patwari and I.L.R. have enquired about the possession on the disputed land and the same is reported in favour of the vendees (non-petitioners). Besides it, there is specific mention of handing over possession in the registered sale deed itself which cannot be ignored as held in 1994 RRD 22. As such I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession on the disputed land was not ascertained while deciding the impugned mutation. 8. Besides it, there is specific mention of handing over possession in the registered sale deed itself which cannot be ignored as held in 1994 RRD 22. As such I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession on the disputed land was not ascertained while deciding the impugned mutation. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 30.10.03 in passing of which learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur has neither committed any jurisdictional error nor any illegality nor any material irregularity. As such the revision is without force. 9. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. Pronounced.