Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 516 (GAU)

Hari Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam

2016-06-07

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State Authorities are represented by Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Government Advocate. The two contesting litigants (respondents Nos.4 & 5) are represented by the learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Roy. 2. The challenge here is to the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-A) in the Case No. 141 RA(K)/09, whereby the learned Board of Revenue declined to entertain the petitioner’s challenge against the restoration of mutation ordered in favour of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, by the Settlement Officer on 11.8.2009 (Annexure-B) in the Misc. Case No. 53/08-09. Earlier the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Guwahati in the Misc. Petition No.3982/2007 granted mutation on 11.7.2007 in favour of the present petitioner Hari Prasad Sarma, after cancellation of the existing mutation in the name of private respondents. 3. Assailing the legality of the impugned order of the Settlement Officer and the Revenue Board, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed land which he purchased on 19.12.2007 from the land owner Sahadeb Saha through his attorney Baleswar Saha and accordingly it is argued by Mr. Mahanta that mutation for the purchased land was rightly granted to the petitioner by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, on 11.7.2007. Here the surprising element is how the date of mutation in favour of the purchaser (Hari Prasad Sarma) is prior to the actual date of purchase i.e. 19.12.2007. But Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel submits that it could be a typographical error. However Mr. A.K. Roy, the learned Counsel submits that mutation was actually granted on 11.7.2007 and this order is challenged by the two private respondents before the Settlement Officer, whereafter the Settlement Officer cancelled the petitioner’s wrongful mutation and restored the mutation of the private respondents on 11.8.2009. 4.1 Mr. A.K. Roy, the learned Counsel for the two private respondents refers to the counter affidavit to contend that the respondent No.4 purchased a plot land measuring 1 (one) katha 10 (ten lechas (4.01 ares) covered by Dag No.21/1691(old)/1879 (new) of K.P. Patta No.44/237 (old)/543 (new) situated at Dakhingaon Village, Mouza-Beltola from Smti. 4.1 Mr. A.K. Roy, the learned Counsel for the two private respondents refers to the counter affidavit to contend that the respondent No.4 purchased a plot land measuring 1 (one) katha 10 (ten lechas (4.01 ares) covered by Dag No.21/1691(old)/1879 (new) of K.P. Patta No.44/237 (old)/543 (new) situated at Dakhingaon Village, Mouza-Beltola from Smti. Anjana Sodhi through her attorney holder Sontosh Saha vide Sale Deed No.16275/05 dated 28.12.2005 after obtaining necessary sale permission form Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) vide No. KRM/2/2005/181 dated 28.06/05 and from Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority vide No. GMDA/SLP/1541/2005/17 dated 05/08/2005 and immediately after purchase, the Respondent No.4 took possession over the land. Said Smt. Anjana Sodhi purchased the said land from earlier owner pattadar, Binuswari @ Sri Bindeswr Prasad through Sale Deed NO.2166 dated 06/05/1994. After she purchased the land, the respondent No.4 got the land mutated in her favour on 03/07/2006 and in this regard Mutation Certificate was also issued vide No.SOGR-7/2006/1345 dated 03/07/2006. 4.2 For the 2nd party, Mr. Roy submits that Sudip Saha (respondent No.5) purchased the plot of land measuring 4.26 Are covered by Dag No.22, Patta No.44 and measuring 5½ lechas covered by Dag No.21 (Old), 1691 (new), Patta No.44 (old)/237 (new) of Dakhingaon Village, under Beltola Mouza vide sale deed No.8447/07 dated 29/06/2007 from Sardar Bhagawan Singh through his attorney holder Sontosh Saha and took possession of the land. The said Sardar Bhagawan Singh purchased the land from original pattadar Baleswar Saha through Sale Deed No.1821 dated 27.02.1976. After the sale in the year 1976, Baleswar Saha exhausted all his land in as much as there was no land in his name and hence Mr. Roy argues that Baleswar Saha cannot sale any land to the writ petitioner vide Sale deed No.17289/07 dated 19/12/2007. The respondent No.5 contends that though the writ petitioner has stated to have purchased the land vide Sale Deed No.17289/07 dated 19/12/2007 but he managed to get mutation in his favour on 11.07.2007. But this contradiction has not been explained in the writ petition and hence he is disentitled to any relief from this Court. 5. The Settlement Officer restored the mutation of the two private respondents with the observation that the Asstt. Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the mutation granted to the private respondents by the earlier Asstt. Settlement Officer. But this contradiction has not been explained in the writ petition and hence he is disentitled to any relief from this Court. 5. The Settlement Officer restored the mutation of the two private respondents with the observation that the Asstt. Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the mutation granted to the private respondents by the earlier Asstt. Settlement Officer. It was also observed that the petitioner’s vendor Sahadeb Saha could not have transferred valid title through the Sale Deed dated 19.12.2007 since by the date of the Sale, the concerned land was already sold out on 29.6.2007 to the 5th respondent Sudip Saha and on 28.12.2005 to the 4th respondent Nivedita Saha. The resultant appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the Revenue Board was not entertained as the Revenue Board noted that the Sale Deed of the appellant was fraudulently executed and the Asstt. Settlement Officer granted mutation to the appellant in violation of the procedural norms. 6. The reasoning given by the Settlement Officer and the Revenue Board in their respective verdicts against the writ petitioner do not in my assessment suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, interference of the Writ Court on the merit of the decision is not warranted. Moreover two civil suits are pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.3, Guwahati between the private respondents and the writ petitioner. Initially the respondents jointly filed the Title Suit No.277/2008 but noticing the technical defect, the common case was withdrawn and thereafter the Title Suit No.65 and 66 of 2013 have been individually filed by Nibedita Saha and Sudip Saha respectively and in both suits, the writ petitioner Hari Prasad Sarma is arrayed as the contesting defendant. The title claim of the contesting parties will naturally be decided by the Civil Court and the winner will undoubtedly secure all consequential relief including the benefit of mutation. It. 7. In the above circumstances, when it is well known that mutation by itself, doesn’t confer any tittle and since the Civil Court is in seisin of the rival claim through the T.S. 65/2013 and the T.S. No.66/2013, I deem it appropriate to relegate the parties for the verdict of the Civil Court. It. 7. In the above circumstances, when it is well known that mutation by itself, doesn’t confer any tittle and since the Civil Court is in seisin of the rival claim through the T.S. 65/2013 and the T.S. No.66/2013, I deem it appropriate to relegate the parties for the verdict of the Civil Court. But the learned Judge is requested to decide the civil suits on merit without being influenced by the observation made by the Settlement Officer or by the Revenue Board, in the mutation dispute. It is ordered accordingly. 8. With the above order, the case stands disposed of. The Registry should send down the LCR with a copy of this order.