Purushottam Alias Bhajan Kaushale vs Dharminbai

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Raipur in Case No.2N/23/B/A-6/8/2023 whereby, the application for grant of stay of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Division Durg in Case No.592/A-6/2021-22, has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner’s ancestor namely Udho has died leaving behind one son namely Fusko and one daughter Mati Bai and Fusko had two wives namely Bitawan Bai and Korbaharin Bai. The village panchayat Temri, after the death of Fusko, had made a mutation on 29.01.1999 vide proposal No.12 and mutation entry bearing No.8 in the absence of representatives of Mati Bai and the said mutation was challenged by her legal heirs before the Revenue Court vide Case No.13A/06/17-18 and the SDO(R), Nawagarh, District Bemetara vide order dated 13.05.2022, has allowed the objection by observing that village Temri has no jurisdiction to pass an order for mutation in case any dispute exists and further no publication was made in the said proceeding and in the earlier records pertaining to the years 1981-82, the name of Mati Bai was recorded, therefore, behind her back, the village panchayat has passed the mutation order, so, it was set aside as the said order was affirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, the same was challenged in a Revision before the Board of Revenue and by the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has also refused to grant any stay in favour of the Petitioner. Hence this Petition.

Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal as the legal heirs of Mati bai have challenged the mutation proceedings at a very belated stage. He further submits that the partition had already taken place between Fusko and Mati Bai way back in the years 1983-84 and Mati Bai has already sold her share and nothing remains with her and she has also not claimed any partition during her life time, therefore, the order of the appellate Court is not sustainable as the Petitioner has demonstrated a good cause for the stay, which has been refused, therefore, prays to allow the Petition.

Upon being asked, Shri Mishra fairly submits that the Petitioner has earlier filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction and later on, the same was dismissed by the Civil Court.

Per contra, Shri Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 18 supports the order impugned.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully.

The revisional Court has passed an order in the proceedings for mutation and it is well settled that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title, which shall always be subject to final decision of the Civil Court. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, the following was observed at paras 7 & 8:-

“7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

The role of supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was well defined in the matter of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, which is as under:-

“The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.”

In the matter of in (2022) 4 SCC 181, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel reported it has been observed in para 6 as under:-

“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to”.

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as both the Courts have found that the mutation was not properly made and the order of mutation passed by the village panchayat was set aside, therefore, by the impugned order, the Commissioner has rejected the prayer for grant of stay in favour of the Petitioner.

In view of above, considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that present is not a fit case to interfere with the order impugned and therefore, the Petition, bereft of any merits, is accordingly dismissed at motion stage.