Wednesday, 26 June 2019

Whether judgment passed by civil court is binding on revenue authorities while carrying out mutation entries?

 In my view, the Law in relation to mutation entries, pursuant
to civil court proceedings, is no longer resintergra.
This Court, in the
matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. vs Krishna Balu
Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom.CR 45 has laid down the Law that when it
comes to carrying out mutation entries, the best piece of evidence
has to be considered in cases where there is no verdict of the Civil
Court. In cases where the Civil Court had an occasion to deal with

the
claims of the parties in relation to their right, title and interest
over immovable properties, it was held that the verdict of the Civil
Court would bind the revenue authorities and mutation entries,
which are meant for fiscal purposes, should be carried out in tune
with the verdict of the Civil Court. It was also concluded that the
verdict of the Civil Court would bind the revenue authorities in
matters of carrying out mutation entries and not viceversa.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2019

Gangabai Ramrao Patil,  Vs   The State of Maharashtra,

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 07/06/2019



1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. It is quite often said in matters of execution of decrees that it is
easier to succeed in getting a decree in accordance with Law from a
Court, but is very difficult to have the decree executed. This is one
classic case of such type of vexatious litigation.
3. The sequence of events are material and which are as under :[
a] The petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with the
concerned respondents on 09/09/1973.
[b] As the respondents did not abide by the agreement to sell and
did not execute a sale deed, Spl.C.S.No.28/1975 was filed. The
petitioner, who was 30 years of age at the relevant time, was a coplaintiff.
[c] The suit was renumbered
as RCS No.616/2000 upon being

transferred
to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, J.D. Udgir.
[d] By judgment dated 30/08/2003, the suit was partly decreed
and the petitioner herein was declared as a joint possessor of the suit
land to the extent of 2/3rd share in the suit.
[e] RCS No.616/2000, which was filed by the defendants in the
first suit, was dismissed.
[e] The litigating sides preferred RCA No.53/2003, 22/2004 and
23/2004 before the First Appellate Court.
[f] By judgment dated 23/03/2006, Appeal No.53/2003, filed by
the petitioner herein, was allowed and it was concluded that the
entire property would go to the share of the petitioner.
[g] Appeal Nos. 22/20004 and 23/2004 filed by the defendants
and the plaintiff in the second suit, were dismissed.
[h] The parties preferred SA No.686/2006 and 687/2007 against
the petitioner before this Court. By judgment dated 03/05/2007, the
second appeals were dismissed.
[i] The aggrieved parties approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by
preferring Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 21264/2007 and
21265/2007. By order dated 23/11/2007, the petitions were
dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
[j] The petitioner initiated execution proceedings and the
judgment debtors preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 97  the CPC raising objections.
[k] As the said objections were rejected, they preferred Writ
Petition No.4342/2012, which was considered by the learned
Vacation Judge of this Court. By observing that the judgment
debtors are attempting to thwart the decree which was confirmed up
to the Apex Court, the writ petition was dismissed.
[l] The petitioner therefore moved the First Revenue Authority for
seeking a mutation entry in her favour.
[m] By order dated 20/06/2012, the said authority rejected the
request on the ground that no Court had observed that the mutation
entry should be carried out in favour of the decree holder.
[n] The petitioner approached the Tahsildar who rejected the
revision application by order dated 20/03/2013.
[o] The petitioner approached the S.D.O. and by order dated
10/07/2014, the S.D.O. allowed the Appeal u/s 247 of the M.L.R.
Code.
[p] On 10/10/2014, the mutation entry was carried out in favour
of the petitioner.
[q] The judgment debtors approached the Additional Collector,
who rejected their request by order dated 28/10/2015.
[r] The judgment debtors then approached the Additional
Commissioner, who rejected their revision by order dated
27/ 01/2017.
[s] By the impugned order dated 21/08/2018, the Minister for
State (Revenue) allowed the revision of the judgment debtors. He
quashed and set aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner
dated 27/01/2017 and of other authorities, who held in favour of the
decree holder and directed the S.D.O. to once again carry out an
enquiry and pass a fresh order.
4. Learned Advocate for the judgment debtors has strenuously
defended the impugned order of the State Revenue Minister
contending that the said order is based on sound principles of Law
and is in tune with all tenets of Law. He made a valiant attempt to
support the said order and has sought the dismissal of this petition
with heavy costs.
5. In my view, the Law in relation to mutation entries, pursuant
to civil court proceedings, is no longer resintergra.
This Court, in the
matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. vs Krishna Balu
Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom.CR 45 has laid down the Law that when it
comes to carrying out mutation entries, the best piece of evidence
has to be considered in cases where there is no verdict of the Civil
Court. In cases where the Civil Court had an occasion to deal with

the
claims of the parties in relation to their right, title and interest
over immovable properties, it was held that the verdict of the Civil
Court would bind the revenue authorities and mutation entries,
which are meant for fiscal purposes, should be carried out in tune
with the verdict of the Civil Court. It was also concluded that the
verdict of the Civil Court would bind the revenue authorities in
matters of carrying out mutation entries and not viceversa.
6. I find from the orders passed by the Talathi and the Tahsildar
that they have demonstrated ignorance of Law. The S.D.O. rightly
appreciated the fact that once the rights and title of the litigants is
settled in proceedings by the Civil Courts, such verdicts would be
binding upon the revenue authorities. In this backdrop, the
impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State cannot be
sustained as it is against the basic principles of Law.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok
Kumar and another [(2003) 8 SCC 289] that the Courts must be
able to identify vexatious litigation. The Courts should be vigilant to
see through diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the
decree holders the fruits of the decree. It would be apposite to
reproduce the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph

No.
22 here under :"
22. All these facts apart, we notice that nowhere in the petition
the respondentstenants
claim to be in possession of any shop
other than Shop No. 3 in regard to which they have suffered an
eviction order. It is not their case that they are also in
possession of some other property in regard to which there is no
eviction order but the landlord is trying to take possession in
these execution proceedings. We have specifically asked the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents that apart from
Shop No.3 belonging to the appellant are
the respondents in
possession of any part of property bearing No. EK 172/2
situated at Chowk Panjeer, Jalandhar. The learned counsel was
not able to give any satisfactory reply to our question which
would only mean that the respondents are not in possession of
any other property other than Shop No.3 leased out to them in
the abovementioned
property belonging to the appellant. That is
also why they prayed for restoration of possession. Therefore,
raising a dispute in regard to the description or identity of the
suit schedule property or a dispute in regard to the boundary of
the suit schedule property is only a bogey to delay the eviction
by the abuse of the process of court. Courts of law should be
careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the
judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the
decree obtained by them. This type of errors on the part of the
judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous
litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the
judicial system."

8.
In Lal Devi and another Vs. Vaneeta Jain and others [(2007)
7 SCC 200], the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with a situation of
abuse of the process of Law and unfair or delaying tactics resorted to
by the parties, concluded that when the parties adopt unfair or
delaying tactics, the Courts have abundant powers to deal with such
situations. The Courts are not helpless. The petitioner/plaintiff has
run from pillar to post, leading to her exhaustion. She was 30 years
old when the litigation began in 1975 and is now 74 years old, having
practically spent her entire lifetime in this litigation.
9. Learned Advocate for the judgment debtors submits that they
had raised an issue and it was left to the revenue authorities to apply
their wisdom and knowledge of Law and pass appropriate orders.
He submits that he had even succeeded before the Hon'ble Minister
since the Hon'ble Minister understood the Law correctly. He,
therefore, prays that these poor farmers may not be saddled with
costs as presently their second generation is in litigation in view of
the original defendants having passed away and one original
defendant Madhavrao is now 80 years of age.
10. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned

order
delivered by the Hon'ble Minister dated 21/08/2018 is quashed
and set aside and Appeal No.2018/P.K.66/J7A
stands rejected.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
11. It is made clear that in the event these defendants are found to
have indulged in vexatious litigation visavis
the petitioner herein,
any time in future, they be saddled with heavy costs.
( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment