AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.�The present Interlocutory Application is filed for condonation of delay of 36 days in preferring the L.P.A. For the reasons stated in this Interlocutory Application, the delay is, hereby, condoned, and the appeal is, hereby, taken up for its hearing.
The I.A. No. 2539 of 2013 stands disposed of.
In L.A.P. No. 504 of 2012
This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2704 of 2006 dated 25.9.2012.
The facts of the case:
It appears that it is the highest case of this appellant that the predecessors of this appellant has purchased the properties from the widow of Rampado Bhattacharjee in the year 1952. The said document was in consideration of less than Rs. 100/-, and therefore, it is an unregistered sale deed.
� It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that Sri Rampado Bhattacharjee was original owner and his name has been mutated in the revenue entry right from 1939 onwards.
� The predecessor in title of this appellant, sat quietly after purchasing the property from 1952 till the year 2006.
� It is alleged by this appellant that the collusive suit was filed between the two persons and the decree was passed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and it is further alleged that the said collusive decree has been confirmed up to Second Appeal before this Court and thereafter the execution proceeding was also instituted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 before the competent trial court being Execution Case No. 5 of 1999, pending before the Sub-Judge-IV, Hazaribagh.
� It further appears from the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that this appellant raised objections under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 101 to be read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, these objections raised by this appellant are given in Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005. This was filed on 28th of July, 2005.
� It further appears that before this Miscellaneous Case is decided, he had also preferred an application before the Revenue Authority for mutation of his name and canceling the name of Rampado Bhattacharjee. It was suppressed by this appellant before the Revenue Authority that this appellant has preferred Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005 under Order, 21 Rule 97 and Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By suppressing this material fact, an application was preferred by this appellant for mutation of his name, unfortunately this was allowed by the Revenue Authority and the name of Rampado Bhattacharjee, which was already entered into the revenue entry right from 1939, has been cancelled and the name of the present appellant was incorporated in the revenue entry.
� This action of the Revenue Authority was under challenge by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2704 of 2006 by the legal heirs of Rampado Bhattacharjee and this writ was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012.
� It further appears that the Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005, which is, in fact, the objections raised in the Execution Case No. 5 of 1999, under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 101 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 21st February, 2009, against which, this appellant has preferred appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2009, pending before the Additional District Judge-VI, at Hazaribagh.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant, who is a predecessor in title of this appeal, was the owner of the property right from 1952 by virtue of the sale deed (annexure-1), and therefore, his legal heirs'' names were correctly mutated by the Revenue Officer in the year 2006. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned single Judge. Thus, it appears that though the name of this appellant as an owner wrongly entered in the revenue entries has been quashed and set aside by the learned single Judge, and therefore also, the judgment and the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2704 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and looking to the various annexures annexed with this L.P.A. and also looking to the papers of the Writ petition (Civil) No. 2704 of 2006 and also looking to the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition dated 25.9.2012, we see no reason to entertain this L.P.A. mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) Even if the case of this appellant is taken at its highest pitch, it appears that the ownership of this appellant upon the property in question is at belligerent stage, title of the present appellant upon the property is yet to be established by the order of the competent Court.
(ii) It further appears prima facie from the facts of the case that the predecessor in title or the predecessor of this appellant, were having the sale deed in their hands right from 1952 (annexure-1), as alleged by this appellant, but, for any reason whatsoever, this appellant had never approached the Revenue Authorities till 2006 and abruptly in the year 2006, the Revenue Authority had mutated the name of this appellant in the revenue entries for the properties in question.
(iii) Initially, right from the year 1939, as submitted by the counsel for the appellant, the name of one Sri Rampado Bhattacharjee was in revenue entries as he was the owner of the property and it is alleged by this appellant that his forefathers purchased the property in question from the widow of this Rampado Bhattacharjee in the year 1952.
(iv) It further appears that one Execution Case No. 5 of 1999 has also been instituted, in whose favour, the decree in the Title Suit has been passed by the competent trial court. This has been confirmed in the Second Appeal also by this Court. In this Execution Case No. 5 of 1999, this appellant has raised objections under Order 21, Rule 97 and Rule 101 to be read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. These objections are given in Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005. Now, during pendency of this Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005, hurriedly it appears that this appellant had rushed to the Revenue Authorities and got his name mutated in the year 2006 and the name of Rampado Bhattacharjee, which was running through out from the year 1939, as alleged by the counsel for the appellant, was removed, now, the dispute has been started. The legal heirs of Rampado Bhattacharjee preferred the writ petition being WP.(C) No. 2704 of 2006 before this Court challenging the mutation entries in the name of this appellant and this writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012, against which, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
(v) It appears from the order passed by the learned single Judge and the facts of the present case is that this appellant is claiming title upon the property in question on the basis of the so called sale deed of the year 1952, for which already the Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005 was instituted on 28.7.2005, this fact was suppressed by this appellant before the Revenue Authority. Had this fact been revealed properly that Misc. Case No. 14 of 2005 is pending before the concerned trial court, perhaps the Revenue Authority would not have mutated the entries in the name of this appellant. Assuming for the sake of assumption, that there was no suppression of these facts by this appellant before the Revenue Authority, then also no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in quashing the mutation entry, which was entered into the revenue record in the year 2006 in favour of this appellant. In fact, the Miscellaneous Case No. 14 of 2005 has already been dismissed by now vide order dated 21.2.2009 and this appellant has already preferred the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 08 of 2009 and the same is pending before the Additional District Judge VI, at Hazaribagh. Thus, this appellant has yet to establish his right, title and interest upon the property in question. The right, title and interest of this appellant, is in belligerent stage, land therefore also, the mutation entry has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge by allowing the writ petition. There is one more reason not to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge that in fact the mutation entry does not give title to anyone. If this appellant is succeeding in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2009, finally, the appellant can certainly approach the Revenue Authority for entry of his name in the revenue records. Thus the right, title and interest of this appellant, whenever is being established finally, by the order of the competent court or by the settlement between the parties, at that stage also, the name of this appellant can be incorporated into the revenue records. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to this appellant by the order of the learned Single Judge.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition. There is no substance in this L.P.A., hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
I.A. No. 2540 of 2013
This Interlocutory Application is filed for amendment in the memo of the L.P.A. In the light of the aforesaid order passed in the L.P.A., this Interlocutory Application is hereby dismissed.