Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 29: The High Court today said that the mutations entries are temporary and do not confer any right to the property unless decreed by the competent court.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar recorded this in a plea whereby orders of Financial Commissioner was challenged on the ground that a mutation attested on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed cannot be interfered with, that too, at the instance of a stranger unless the same is set aside by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
“…that the mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property. These entries are always subject to a decree of the civil court of competent jurisdiction”, court said.
The parties in the instant case are litigating before the civil Courts where, apart from validity of sale deed relied upon by one of the parties and the agreement to sell relied upon by the other party, an issue with regard to the possession, is also subject matter of adjudication.
During the course of arguments, it was brought to my notice of the court that the evidence in the suits which are now consolidated and are being tried together is over and the matter is set down for arguments.
“Be that as it may, the mutation attested in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a registered sale deed cannot be set aside till a decree to the contrary pronouncing upon the validity of the sale deed and the factum of possession is passed by the civil Court”, Justice Kumar said.
It has been held by the court that the Revenue Officers, right from Settlement Officer to the Financial Commissioner were not correct in coming to a conclusion that the mutation attested on the basis of sale deed without ascertaining the factum of possession of the petitioner on the purchased land was not sustainable in law.
The court quashed the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and, as a consequence thereof, orders passed by the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Commissioner shall also cease to exist and are hereby quashed.
“The mutation attested in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed is upheld and shall only be subject to a decree that may be passed by the civil Court in the civil litigation launched by both the parties before the civil Courts”, read the judgment.
The agreement to sell the court said does not confer any right on the party to hold the subject land in question as such the party does not seem to have any locus to challenge the mutation. “The law would look at such a person as an ‘unauthorized occupant’. On the other hand, the petitioner holds a valid sale deed and a mutation attested on the basis thereof in his favour. In such circumstances, it was not just and proper for the Revenue Courts to set aside the mutation only on the ground that there was no proper enquiry as to the possession conducted by the Revenue Officers”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
