Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1812 (RAJ)

Jeevani v. Jassu Ram

2011-08-25

G.K.TIWARI

body2011
Dr. TIWARI, M.—All the three above cited revision petitions filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act') are taken together for common judgment, as they involve common law point and have almost the same parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of these cases are that on death of a khatedar tenant namely Ghisa Ram son of Uda Ram, a mutation No. 483 was opened and attested in favour of Nathmal son of Balu Ram on the basis of sale deed dated 20.5.2003 by Gram Panchayat Malsisar (District Churu). Similarly another mutation No. 484 was attested by Gram Panchayat Malsisar by its order dated 20.5.2003. Likewise two more mutations No. 81 and 485 were attested in favour of Bhagirath Prasad son of Ghisa Ram on the basis of adoption deed, by Gram Panchayat Malsisar vide its order dated 20.8.2003 and 20.5.2003. Mutations, No. 483 and 484 dated 20.5.2003 were challenged in appeal by Jassu Ram under Section 75 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sujangarh. Similarly mutation No. 81 dated 20.8.2003 and mutation No. 485 dated 20.5.2003 were challenged together by Jassu Ram before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sujangarh. Sub-Divisional Officer in all the three appeals filed before him by Jassu Ram did not take any final decision; but stayed the proceedings of appeals in view of the pending revenue suit between the same parties by its judgment dated 7.5.2005, which were challenged by Jassu Ram in second appeal under Section 76 of the Act before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner who partially allowed all the three appeals vide its judgment dated 21.2.2007. Additional Divisional Commissioner set aside the judgments of Sub-Divisional Officer and quashed all the mutation orders (mutation No. 483, 484 and 485 dated 20.5.2003 and mutation No. 81 dated 20.8.2003), and directed Tehsildar, Sujangarh to decide these mutations in accordance with the judgment of the pending revenue suit filed before the competent Revenue Court. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.2.2007 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner the above cited three revision petitions are filed in this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 21.2.2007 of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner the above cited three revision petitions are filed in this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ghisa Ram-khatedar tenant-had sold his khatedari land in favour of Nathu Ram alias Nathmal and Jeevani wife of Nathu Ram alias Nathmal through registered sale deeds pursuant to which relevant mutations were correctly opened and attested by the Gram Panchayat vide its order dated 20.5.2003, and Sub-Divisional Officer rightly did not change these mutations in appeal in view of the pending revenue suit in competent Revenue Court. But Additional Divisional Commissioner erred in setting aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer and mutation orders dated 20.5.2003. Mutation proceedings cannot be kept pending as mutation is a summary fiscal proceeding. So the judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner should be set aside and the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer should be revived. 5. With regard to revision No. 2007/2329, it was contended that one combined appeal was filed before Additional Divisional Commissioner against both the mutations No. 81 dated 20.8.2003 and 485 dated 20.5.2003, whereas two separate appeals should have been filed against these two mutations. Thus a common appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner was misconceived. But Additional Divisional Commissioner illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of Sub-Divisional Officer as well as two mutation orders of mutations No. 81 and 485. It was also contended that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing by the second Appellate Court. Thus these judgments are passed at the back of the petitioners. As such these revision petitions should be allowed and the impugned judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner should be quashed. 6. Opposing the contentions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that all these impugned mutations- 483, 484 and 485 were carried to on 20.5.2003 and mutation No. 81 was carried out on 20.8.2003, whereas the mother of Jassu Ram, Mangi Devi had filed a regular revenue suit in the year 1999 on the basis of the Will executed in her favour by deceased khatedar Ghisa Ram. This suit is still pending before a competent Revenue Court. After death of Mangi Devi, Jassu Ram as well as rest of the petitioners are party to the suit. This is dispute pertaining to the khatedari land of Ghisa Ram. This suit is still pending before a competent Revenue Court. After death of Mangi Devi, Jassu Ram as well as rest of the petitioners are party to the suit. This is dispute pertaining to the khatedari land of Ghisa Ram. All the parties are claiming right and interest in this land on the basis of Will, adoption deed and sale deed. This intricate matter cannot be decided in summary proceedings of mutation, as a regular suit is already pending. Additional Divisional Commissioner has rightly restored the position of the land as it stood with regard to the deceased khatedar. Therefore, the impugned judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner should not be interferred with in revision as it has committed neither any jurisdictional error nor any illegality. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned judgment and gone through the material on record. 8. Evidently the dispute pertains to the khatedari land of deceased khatedar Ghisa Ram. Jassu Ram is claiming right and interest in the disputed land on the basis of a purported Will executed in favour of her mother Mangi Devi by the deceased khatedar Ghisa Ram. Bhagirath Prasad is seeking right and interest on the basis of purported adoption deed executed by the khatedar Ghisa Ram. Jeevani and Nathu Ram are claiming right and interest in the land on the basis of sale deed purportedly executed by the deceased khatedar Ghisa Ram. Admittedly a regular revenue suit pertaining to the same disputed land was filed way back in the year 1999 in a competent Revenue Court where it is still said to be pending. It has also come to the light that the impugned mutations were carried out while there was an interim stay order with regard to the disputed land by the competent Court. In view of such an interim stay order by a competent Revenue Court these mutation orders should not have been passed. An intricate issue of right and interest claimed by several parties through their respective deeds and documents cannot be decided and adjudicated in summary proceedings of mutations which are of the fiscal nature. It has been consistently held by this Court that when a regular revenue suit is pending adjudication before the competent Revenue Court, mutation proceeding with regard to the suit lands should be kept pending till the decision of the suit. It has been consistently held by this Court that when a regular revenue suit is pending adjudication before the competent Revenue Court, mutation proceeding with regard to the suit lands should be kept pending till the decision of the suit. Mutation should be attested only in accordance with the judgment pronounced in the concerned suit. Thus, Additional Divisional Commissioner has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007. 9. I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Additional Divisional Commissioner has committed illegality in passing a common appellate order against two mutation orders of mutation No. 81 dated 20.8.2003 and mutation No. 485 dated 20.5.2003. Firstly, petitioners did not raise objection and take this plea before Additional Divisional Commissioner. Perusal of the Court files of Appellate Court shows that the petitioner has not raised any preliminary objection or taken any plea against filing of a common appeal against two impugned mutations. Thus, the petitioner seems to have consciously forsaken this plea. Secondly, when a dispute involves a common law point and parties to the dispute are the same involving the land of the same deceased khatedar, a common appeal can be filed which can be decided by a common judgment. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find neither any jurisdictional error nor any illegality in the impugned judgment of Additional Divisional Commissioner. Thus, all the above mentioned revisions are without force. 11. In the result, all the above cited revision petitions are dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007 of Additional Divisional Commissioner passed in appeal No. 16/05, 17/05 and 18/05 are upheld. Pronounced.