Jwala Singh And Ors vs Board Of Revenue, Ajmer And Ors

This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2018, passed by the Single Judge on a writ petition preferred by the petitioners.

It is a case where a land was mutated in the name of petitioners. A challenge to the mutation was made by the side opposite. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue by way of revision by the side opposite. The revision petition was allowed, thereby, mutation of land was set aside.

The petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that mutation was opened based on registered gift deed. It was also stated that a suit for injunction along with challenge to the gift deed has been made with a prayer to partition the land. The injunction application therein was dismissed by the Revenue Court.

In view of the aforesaid, there was no reason for the Board of Revenue to set aside the order opening the entry of land in the name of the present petitioners.

Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid thus challenge to the order passed on a writ petition so as on the revision petition by the Board of Revenue has been made.

We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

Learned Single Judge has recorded its finding that mutation of land is by fiscal proceeding. It does not determine right of title of the parties.

In view of the above, learned Single Judge, while causing interference in the order, nullified the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun City. The effect of the order was to nullify mutation of land in favour of the petitioners even while setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

The issue about contradiction in the order has been raised but we find that a litigation between the parties is pending. It is to seek partition of land apart from injunction thus simultaneously, a challenge to the gift deed has been made. The outcome of that litigation would decide fate of the parties thus we are of the opinion that till the said litigation is decided, the position of land would be maintained as it exist today. To clarify, the mutation would not be taken in the name of any of the parties till the pending suit is decided and, to further safeguard the rights of parties, they would not alienate the property in any manner during pendency of the suit.

If the suit preferred by the other party is dismissed, the consequence would obviously for registration of mutation in favour of the petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of. If the other party is having any grievance to this order, it would be at liberty to maintain an application for modification of the order.

So far as the direction for expeditious disposal of the revenue suit is concerned, the order is maintained.