Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 433 (GUJ)

Hardik Sunilbhai Agrawal v. Prant Officer, Kadi

2023-03-13

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil S. Joshi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar for the respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent No.5. 1.1. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass and with the consent of learned advocates, these petitions arising out of common issue of initiation of proceedings of disputed cases for mutation of entry in revenue record, are heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. 3.1. The petitioner of each petition has challenged the notice issued by the respondent- Authorities registering the disputed case on the basis of objection raised by respondent No.4 with regard to the mutation of the entry to be certified on the basis of the registered saledeed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 for sale of respective parcel of land. 3.2. Brief facts of individual petitions are as under : 3.2.1. In Special Civil Application No.3038 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1445 admeasuring 2449 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19905/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16226 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16226 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.476/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4. 3.2.2. In Special Civil Application No.3039 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1446 admeasuring 5804 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19902/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16224 dated 13.12.2022. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19902/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16224 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16224 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.477/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4. 3.2.3. In Special Civil Application No.3040 of 2023, it is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Survey No.1444 admeasuring 4544 Sq.Mtrs was owned and possessed by the petitioner. On 13.12.2022, by a registered sale-deed bearing Registration No.19904/2022, the petitioner sold the same to the respondent No.3. The aforesaid sale transaction was mutated in Village Form No.6 of the said land vide M.E.No.16225 dated 13.12.2022. An RTI activist, lodged a written objection dated 23.12.2022, opposing certification of said M.E.No.16225 on the ground that the petitioner herein is not an agriculturist. Pursuant to the written objections lodged by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.1 and/or respondent No.2 appears to have entered the particulars of the said objections in the Register of Disputed Cases and same is registered as RTS/Takrari Case No.478/2022 and issued a notice to the petitioner in respect of the dispute raised by the respondent No.4. 3.3. This Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice A.S.Supehia) passed the following order on 22nd February, 2023 : “Draft amendment is allowed in terms of draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith. Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 01.03.2023 on the top of the board. Respondent no.1-Prant Officer and respondent no.6-Deputy Mamlatdar, EDhara are directed to file affidavit to explain that how the document at page no.14 (application) filed by the respondent no.4 can be treated as an objection for the property in question, which is in the form of warning to them. The respondent no.4 has warned them that if any modification is done and if it is against the interest of the State and any loss is caused to the Government Exchequer (Revenue), then appropriate action will be taken against such officer. The respondent no.4 has warned them that if any modification is done and if it is against the interest of the State and any loss is caused to the Government Exchequer (Revenue), then appropriate action will be taken against such officer. Thus, the application appears to be in the form of warning to the respondent authorities and by succumbing to such warning, the entry is certified as “disputed”. It is interesting to note that the respondent no.4 is not at all connected with the land in question and is an RTI Activist. Prima facie, the acceptance of an application by an alien person will be against the provisions of Section 135 D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. A responsible officer from the respondent no.5-Secretary of Revenue Department shall personally remain present before this Court explaining that how such an application filed by the respondent no.4 could have been entertained by the officers i.e. more particularly respondent nos.1 and 6. Ad-interim relief in terms of para 20(b) is granted till the further orders are passed. Direct service is permitted today.” 4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- Authorities could not have taken the cognizance of the objection raised by the respondent No.4 who is a social worker and RTI activist and he has no interest in the land of the ownership of the petitioners. 4.2. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on Sub-sections (2), (3) and (8) of Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short ‘the Code’). 4.3. It was submitted that the notice issued by the respondent-Authorities under Section 135D of the Code inviting objections also refers to the persons whose rights are affected by the proposed mutation entry. 4.4. Reliance was also placed on the Rules 106, 107 and 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules’) prescribing the procedure for registering the disputed cases for mutating the entry in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale-deed. 4.4. Reliance was also placed on the Rules 106, 107 and 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules’) prescribing the procedure for registering the disputed cases for mutating the entry in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale-deed. It was submitted that as per Rule 106 of the Rules, a mutation is required to be posted in a Diary by the village accountant and examined by the Circle Inspector and such mutation shall be read out to all the concerned persons who are present and thereafter, Circle Inspector shall initial all entries so examined and if any person is adversely affected admits an entry to be correct, the Circle Inspector shall note the admission and if any interested person disputes the correctness of an entry, the Circle Inspector shall not erase but shall correct any errors admitted by all parties either by bracketing the errors and inserting the correct entries by interlineations or side note or by an entirely fresh entry, in either case authenticated by signature if error is not admitted, he shall enter the dispute in the Register of Displaced Cases (Form Q) and it shall be disposed of under Rule 108 of the Rules. It was submitted that the objections raised by private respondent No.4 could not have been directly entered into the Register of Disputed Cases by the respondent-Authorities. It was pointed out that the petitioner cannot be subjected to the proceedings initiated by the impugned notice for registration of the Disputed Cases on the basis of the objection raised by the respondent No.4-private person who is a social worker and RTI activist. 4.5. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr.Joshi that the respondent No.4 is in habit of raising disputes with respect to applications which are made for mutation of entries on the basis of the registered saledeeds. He invited the attention of the Court to the application made by the respondent No.4 which is in a printed format with the details of the registered sale-deed executed by the petitioner filled by hand writing in the blanks kept in the printed form. 4.6. He invited the attention of the Court to the application made by the respondent No.4 which is in a printed format with the details of the registered sale-deed executed by the petitioner filled by hand writing in the blanks kept in the printed form. 4.6. It was also submitted that the said application is in a format prepared by the respondent No.4 and the copy of such objection is sent to the Chief Minister, Revenue Minister, ACB Office, Vigilance Commissioner, Revenue Inspector, Deputy Collector, Mamlatdar, Talati, E-Dhara Mamalatdar and Deputy Mamlatdar. It was therefore submitted that the respondent No.4 has filed such an application raising objection only with an oblique motive. 4.7. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent-Authorities relying upon the Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code which refers to ‘any person’ in the said Sub-section cannot be read in isolation and the word “any person” has to read in consonance with Subsection (2) and Sub-section (4) of Section 135D of the Code. 4.8. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on paragraph Nos.29 to 31 of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Nasirkhan Nivaskhan Pathan versus District Developemenet Officer reported in 2001 (3) G.L.H. 133 . 4.9. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent-Authorities relying upon the objection raised by the respondent No.4 are therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Dhawan Jayswal submitted that the respondent-Authorites are required to publish the notice at the public places (‘Chavadi’) with regard to the mutation entry to be made on the basis of the registered sale-deed so as to invite any objection from any person as referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code. 5.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1- Deputy Collector, Kadi : “7. It is submitted that the present petitions are filed challenging the Takrari case no. 5.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1- Deputy Collector, Kadi : “7. It is submitted that the present petitions are filed challenging the Takrari case no. 477/2022, 478/2022, 476/2022 by which the Deputy Collector has issued the notice to all the concerned parties under the provision of rule 108(1) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules with regard to the lands of blocks / Survey No. 1446, 1444, 1445 respectively Moje Rajpur, Taluka Kadi District Mahesana, hereinafter referred to as land in question for the brevity. 8. I say and submit that the authority had mutated the temporary entry being 16224, 16225, 16226 on 13.12.2022 for the sale transaction of agriculture land in question between petitioner and private respondents. As a part of procedure prescribed under section 135(D) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code we issued notice to all the concerned as well as to place the notice at Chavadi (a place visible at the Panchayat Office) the Gujarati language of the Act categorically provides for the above procedure and therefore for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court the relevant provision of Gujarati Language Act is Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURER1. The copy of notice 135(D) is Annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R2. 9. I say and submit that in response to notice issued the respondent no. 4 herewith has raised objection on 23.12.2022 which is placed at page no. 14 with the memo of petitioner and therefore as part of the procedure required to be followed as per section 135(D)(3) of the Code the impugned notice dated 27.12.2022 was issued by providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned by recording the dispute as raised by the respondent no. 4 and accordance with law the hearing dated was fixed on 11.01.2023 and thereafter further to hearing were taken place on 08.02.2023 further adjourned the proceeding on 23.02.2023. 10. I further say and submit that the present petition are required to be dismissed on the ground of the petitioner having effective alternative remedy available at law more particularly prescribed under rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972. 10. I further say and submit that the present petition are required to be dismissed on the ground of the petitioner having effective alternative remedy available at law more particularly prescribed under rule 108 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules 1972. I say and submit that as on dated no adverse order are passed against the petitioners and it is always for the petitioner to raised all the contentions as raised by the petitioner in the present petitions. 11. I say and submit that Section 135(D) (3) is mandatory in nature which states that “it shall be the duty designation officer to entered particulars of the objections if any received from any person either manually or electronically, in a register of disputed cases and to give read acknowledgement of the receipt of such objection to the person making it in the same manner.” Therefore, it is the mandatory on the part of the designated officer i.e. Talati/Mamlatdar to enter the disputes and as he does not have jurisdiction to decide such objection in view of the amendment made by the Government, Deputy Collector empowered to deal with the objections and therefore, Mamlardar Kadi has entered the objection and forwarded the same Deputy Collector Kadi and Deputy Collector has issued the notice to the objector and the seller and the purchaser. 12. It is also submitted that the Deputy Collector also supplied the copy of the objection to all the concerned parties so as the follow proper procedure for deciding the objection in accordance with law and following due procedure and therefore praying before the Hon’ble Court to vacate interim relief as granted by this Hon’ble Court and further be pleased to dismiss present petitions in the interest of justice.” 5.2. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that the respondent-Authorities has issued the notices to the petitioners for submitting the reply because the case is now registered as a Disputed Case in view of the objection raised by the respondent No.4. It was submitted that the respondent-Authorities cannot look into each and every objection which is received by it during the course of the day and on receipt of the objection, the entries are made in the Register of Disputed Cases and thereafter the notices are issued to the concerned parties to submit their reply and authorities shall consider such reply and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 5.3. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed and set aside at this stage as the petitioner is required to file reply so as to enable the authority to examine the case on merits. 5.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayswal referred to Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code which refers to “any person” who can raise an objection with regard to the mutation of the entry in the revenue records of any transaction which has taken place. 5.5. It was also pointed out that on the basis of the objections raised by the respondent No.4, the respondent-Authorities have not concluded that the mutation entry is not to be certified and the petitioner has the opportunities to file reply against the objections and plead all contentions which are raised in this petition before the respondent- Authority which shall be considered by the respondent-Authority in accordance with law. 6. Learned advocate Mr.N.K.Majmudar appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent No.4 being a vigilant citizen has raised the objections as the person who has purchased the property is non agriculturist and therefore, the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Gujarat Tenancy and Land Act, 1948 and therefore, mutation entry cannot be made in the revenue records on the basis of the saledeed executed by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.4 : “6) It is submitted that considering the provisions of section 135(D) and considering the provisions of 135(D)(3) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, the concerned Designated Officer Deputy Collector-Prant Officer has kept further proceedings for hearing and had issued notices in this regard. It is submitted that the Deputy Collector - Prant Officer has kept the proceedings of certification of entry for further hearing after issuing notice to all the persons. 7) It is submitted that proceedings have been kept for further consideration of the application/ issue relating to mutation of entry/ certification of entry, and the proceedings are pending, and have been adjourned. 8) It is submitted that the concerned revenue authorities have entered the details pertaining to the said entry as disputed entry as the deponent had raised objection. 7) It is submitted that proceedings have been kept for further consideration of the application/ issue relating to mutation of entry/ certification of entry, and the proceedings are pending, and have been adjourned. 8) It is submitted that the concerned revenue authorities have entered the details pertaining to the said entry as disputed entry as the deponent had raised objection. It is submitted that as on date, no order is passed by any of the authorities and no prejudice of whatsoever nature is caused to the present petitioner and no right of the present petitioner is being affected by entering the details pertaining to the provisional entry as disputed entry as the concerned Revenue Authorities are already seized of with the proceedings pertaining to the certification of entry/ mutation of entry, and the petitioner will have opportunity to raise all the contentions in this regard. 9) It is submitted that even otherwise also, the present petitioner has already executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 3 and the present petition is preferred by the petitioner who has already sold the subject matter land by executing the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent NO. 3 and therefore the petitioner is not an affected party and therefore also the petitioner is not having the locus standi to prefer the said petition and therefore the same may kindly be dismissed. 10) It is submitted that efficacious, alternate, statutory remedy is already available in the nature of proceedings before the and Deputy Collector and Prant who has already issued the notice for further consideration of issue relating to posting and certification of entry and considering the objections and as the notice for further consideration of issue relating to posting and notification of entry is already and considering the objection, and the said notice is already annexed as Annexure-D annexed at running Pg. No.16-17 of the present petition, it is submitted that that the present petition may kindly be dismissed. 11) It is always open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions in support of certification of the entry and posting of the mutation entry before the concerned Ld. Deputy Collector as the concerned Ld. Deputy Collector is seized of the proceedings. No.16-17 of the present petition, it is submitted that that the present petition may kindly be dismissed. 11) It is always open for the petitioner to raise all the contentions in support of certification of the entry and posting of the mutation entry before the concerned Ld. Deputy Collector as the concerned Ld. Deputy Collector is seized of the proceedings. It is submitted that even as per the contentions raised by the petitioner, the present respondent No. 4 does not have any kind of interest to raise objections, then such contentions may also be considered and dealt with by the concerned authorities as and when the proceedings would be considered by the concerned Ld. Deputy Collector apropos to the notice for hearing is already annexed as Annexure-D annexed at running Pg. No. 16-17 of the present petition. 12) It is submitted that showing the entry as disputed entry in the register and keeping the proceedings for further consideration, do not affect rights of any of the parties in any manner and therefore also the present petition may kindly be dismissed.” 6.1. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that the petitioner can file reply to the objections filed by the respondent No.4 before the respondent-Authority and the respondent-Authority would, after hearing all the concerned parties can arrive at a conclusion disposing the objections raised by the respondent No.4 in accordance with law. 6.2. It was submitted that Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code is to be read as an independent Sub-section which provides that ‘any person’ can raise objection for mutation of the entry in the revenue record. 6.3. It was therefore submitted that the respondent No.4 was justified in raising the objections on the basis of the information available with the respondent No.4 that the person who has purchased the land of the petitioner is not an agriculturist. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the present case, it appears that the respondent No.4 who is a social worker and RTI activist has raised objections in an application which was prepared in a format with blanks to be filled in and such application raising objections was filed with the respondent-Authority after the petitioner submitted his application for mutation of entry of the registered sale executed by him. 8. 8. On perusal of the application at Page No.14, Annexure-C to the petition, it is clear that the respondent No.4 has filed such application with some oblique motive without there being any supporting documents to point out that the petitioner has executed the sale-deed in favour of a non-agriculturist. 9. In order to consider the issue as to whether “any person” can raise an objection to the mutation entry to be made in the revenue record, it would be germane to refer to the provision of Section 135D of the Code which reads as under : “Section 135D: (1) (a) The designated office shall enter, manually or electronically by the automated process, in a register of mutations, every report made to him under section 135C or any intimation of acquisition or transfer of any right on land made to him, either manually or electronically under section 135C from the Mamlatdar, or a court of law. (b) (i) When a claim or document of right is produced before the designated office, he shall, through bio-metric ID or any other mode as may be prescribed, verify the identity and the lawful rights of the transferor and the transferee. (ii) Upon completion of verification, the necessary entries shall be made in the register of mutations in the manner as may be prescribed and the notice of the transaction under section 135D shall be served to the persons interested therein. (2) Whenever a designated office makes an entry, either manually or electronically in the register of mutations, he shall at the same time intimate to all persons appearing from the record of rights or register of mutations to be interested in the mutation and to any other person whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein in the manner as may be prescribed. (3) It shall be the duty of the designated officer to enter the particulars of the objection if any received from any person either manually or electronically, in a register of disputed cases and to give written acknowledgment of the receipt of such objection to the person making it in the same manner. (3) It shall be the duty of the designated officer to enter the particulars of the objection if any received from any person either manually or electronically, in a register of disputed cases and to give written acknowledgment of the receipt of such objection to the person making it in the same manner. (4) Orders disposing of objections entered in the register of disputed cases shall be recorded, either manually or electronically, in the register of mutations, after disposing it within the period as may be prescribed for this purpose and the same may be intimated to the concerned person having interest in the said mutation. (5) Where no objection is raised by any person having interest in the transaction, either manually or electronically, within a period of thirty days, the mutation entry shall be certified electronically through an automated process or manually, as the case may be. (6) The transfer of entries from the register of mutations to the record of rights shall be effected subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf: Provided that an entry in the register of mutations shall not be transferred to the record of right until such entry has been duly certified. (7) In the event, where the automated process of certification of entries has not been initiated, the entries in the register of mutations shall be verified and if found correct or after correction shall be certified in the Mutation Register, within a period as may be prescribed, by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Mamlatdar, and the same may be intimated to the concerned person having interest therein. (8) Where the certifying officer has a reason to believe that such mutation entry violates or contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or any other Act, he shall not certify such entry and shall intimate the same with reasons in writing to the person concerned. (9) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of perpetual tenancies and also in respect of any tenancies mentioned in a notification under subsection (2) of section 135B but the provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of other tenancies, which shall be entered in a register of tenancies, in such manner and under such procedure as may be prescribed.” 10. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that Sub-section (2) Section 135D of the Code provides for making an entry in the Register of Mutations by intimating the persons appearing from the record of rights or register of mutations to all interested or to the persons who are interested in mutation or to any other person for whom the registered authority has reason to believe to be interested. Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code provides that it is the duty of the designated Officer to enter the particulars of the objection, if any, received from any person either manually or electronically, in a Register of Disputed Cases and to give written acknowledgment of the receipt of such objection to the person making it in the same manner. Therefore Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the code provides that when any objection is received from any person by the designated officer, then it is his duty to enter such objections in the Register of Disputed Cases. 11. Therefore the question arises whether the words “any person” is required to be interpreted in a general term or in a restricted manner. To answer this question, it would be necessary that the provision of Section 135D of the Code has to be considered as a whole. On perusal of the provision of Section 135D of the Code provides for Register of Mutation and Register of Disputed Cases. It appears that the designated officer has to make entry in the Registers i.e. Register of Mutations and Register of Disputed Cases on receipt of an application for mutation. 12. So far as Register of Mutation is concerned, such entry is required to be made on every report made to such designated officer under Section 135C of the Code or any intimation of acquisition or transfer of any right on land made to him. On receipt of such report or intimation, designated officer is required to make an entry in the Register of Mutations and all persons appearing from the record of the rights or Register of Mutations to be interested in the mutation are required to be intimated or any person who is interested as per reason to believe of the designated Officer then such person is also required to be intimated. 13. 13. Whereas, Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code refers to the Register of Disputed Cases which provides for the entry to made in the Register of Disputed Cases of particulars of objections if any received from ‘any person’ by the designated Officer. Thus, the designated Officer is duty bound to make an entry in the Register of Disputed Cases of the objections if received from any person. Therefore, question as to the words “any person” has to be considered in the context of only the person as interested in the property in question or whether any person can raise an objection though he has no interest in the property is to be analysed. In this context, Sub-section (4) read with Sub-section (8) of Section 135D of the Code is also required to be taken into consideration which provides that orders disposing of objections entered in the Register of Disputed Cases has to be recorded in the Register of Mutations after disposing it within the prescribed period and when the Certifying Officer has reason to believe that such mutation entry violates or contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or any other Act, he shall not certify such entry and shall intimate the same with reasons in writing to the concerned persons. Therefore, the entire scheme of Section 135D of the Code refers to the mutation entry to be made on either on the basis of the report received under Section 135C or on receipt of intimation of acquisition or transfer of any right on land made by the concerned person under Section 135C from the Mamlatdar or a Court of Law. 14. The mutation entry refers to any transaction of transfer of any right on land only and therefore, the person who is interested in such transfer of right or transaction on land is required to be intimated or in other words such persons can only raise the objections. 14. The mutation entry refers to any transaction of transfer of any right on land only and therefore, the person who is interested in such transfer of right or transaction on land is required to be intimated or in other words such persons can only raise the objections. Therefore the words “any person” as it appears to in Subsection (3) of the Section 135D of the Code has to be considered keeping in mind the scheme of Section 135D of the Code which refers to the mutation of entry with respect of the transfer of right on a land and therefore, any person who has interest in such land can raise objection and not ‘any person’ who thinks that such mutation entry should not be made like the respondent No.4. 15. The full bench of this Court in case of Nasirkhan Nivaskhan Pathan (Supra) has considered the issue of the expression or a word or a phrase employed in the statute as under : “29. The principle of "noscitur a soiis" has a purpose and policy behind it. It means recognition by associated words. A statutory term is, thus, recognised by its associated words. The Latin maxim "noscitur a sociis" states this contextual principle, whereby, a word or phrase is not to be construed, as if it stood alone, but in the light of its surroundings. It may, also, be noted that this maxim has, also, generated the particular percepts such as the "ejusdem generis" principle and also the concept of rank principle. In our opinion, those principles are aids to reach to the correct interpretation and in fact, the various linguistic canons of interpretation developed over the centuries to enlighten the meaning generally and not just only in juristic context. The linguistic canons of construction are useful tools and aids to interpretation of specific legislative provisions in the enactments. In case, the linguistic canons of construction, have the effect of elaborating the literal meaning of a word or a phrase, usually by taking the elaborated meaning as having been implied by the maker or the author thereof. 30. The expression or a word or a phrase employed in the statute must, always, be interpreted in the light of the surrounding words in the contextual background. As Viscount Simmonds said, "words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation; their colour and their content are derived from their context". 30. The expression or a word or a phrase employed in the statute must, always, be interpreted in the light of the surrounding words in the contextual background. As Viscount Simmonds said, "words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation; their colour and their content are derived from their context". It may be stated that English words derive colour from those which surround them. Sentences are not mere collection of words to be taken out of the sentence, defined separately by reference to the dictionary or decided cases, and then put back into the sentence with the meaning which you have assigned to them as separate words. For the purpose of resolving an ambiguity or for solving the doubt about the construction of a word, phrase or any sentence in the enactment, reference to a nearby passage is very useful. This is, as such, crystalised in the doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" which has been applied in many cases for the purpose of ascertainment of the real legislative design and desideratum. 31. The principle or the doctrine of the "ejusdem generis" arises from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning or doubtful meaning when taken in isolation are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context. It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication. The draftsman, therefore, must be taken to have inserted general words or certain words, in case, something which ought to have been included among the specifically enumerated items had been omitted. We are highlighting this aspect since the expression "pending criminal proceedings" have given more than one interpretation, whether before or after the person elected to the office. That is the reason why, the learned single Judge has chosen it expedient to make a reference to the Larger Bench. Applying the aforesaid principles of "noscitur a sociis" and doctrine of "ejusdem generis" the correct interpretation is required to be reached. Obviously, when doubt is raised about the intent, content and the colour of the word, phrase or sentence of a provision in the enactment, an aid of colouring agent provides useful guide, helpful aid, in finding out the true legislative intendment. In our opinion, the aforesaid principles in the factual background and the contextual profile should operate as a colouring agent and effective guide. In our opinion, the aforesaid principles in the factual background and the contextual profile should operate as a colouring agent and effective guide. Moreover, since it is an admitted fact that pending criminal proceedings are not a disqualification for being elected to the office.” 16. Therefore, considering the principles of “noscitur a sociis” as well as “ejusdem geenris”, the word “any person” is to be considered in a narrow sense only and the person interestated on a transfer of right on the land for which the mutation entry is required to be made can only raise objection under Sub-section (3) of Section 135D of the Code. Therefore, the respondent- Authorities were not justified in taking congnisance of the objections raised by the respondent No.4 by making entry in the Register of Disputed Cases. 17. However, it is also pertinent to note that as per Sub-section (8) of Section 135D of the Code, the respondent-Authority is required to consider information which may be received from any person for the purpose of certifying the entry and on the basis of such information, the respondent-Authority after competent authority passes any order for violation of any provision of Code or any other Act, then may come to conclusion that the transactions of transfer of right on a land is in violation of any provisions of the Code or any other Act, then the respondent-Authorities or designated Authority can refuse to certify the entry after recording the reasons by intimating the concerned persons. 18. At the same time, the respondent- Authorities or designated authority by mutating the entry for fiscal purpose is not required to go into the merits of the transaction of transfer of right on a land and if any material is received by the respondent-Authorities, the same should be referred to the concerned competent Officer of the Revenue Department so as to initiate suo-moto proceedings on basis of such material for violation of any provisions of the Code or any other Act. 19. 19. Therefore, the respondent-Authorities on receipt of the objections received by the respondent No.4 could not have entered the same in the Register of Disputed Cases but independently could have considered such objections on the basis of the material received from the respondent No.4 and thereafter, consider the same and/or refer it to the concerned competent authority for taking further actions in accordance with law if such material appears to be violative of the any other law. The respondent-Authorities also could have directed the respondent No.4 to make such application before the competent Authority for breach of any law for the transaction of transfer of right on the land. 20. In view of the foregoing reasons, all the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned notices issued by the respondent-Authority are hereby quashed and set aside with a liberty to the respondent-Authority to refer the objections raised by the respondent No.4 to competent authority to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.