This court quashed orders declaring the petitioners' sale deeds void and halting mutation. It held that executive authorities lack jurisdiction to invalidate registered sale deeds or stop mutation proceedings without a court decree, relying on a pre-existing precedent.
Writ petition allowed; impugned orders dated 02.12.2005 and 30.07.2005 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15819 of 2006
Petitioner :- Kamal Datta and Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Mehra,Shashi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
“Heard Shri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.07.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gautam Budh Nagar as well as notice dated 08.08.2005 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate that their sale deeds have been declared void.
Facts, in brief, for the purposes of the case are as under.
2
Petitioners allege that they purchased some bhoomidhari plots situate in village Nagli Behrampur, District Gautam Budh Nagar from the recorded bhoomidhars of their shares by means of a registered sale deed on various dates on payment of consideration. It has further been alleged that some of the plots they purchased, have been transferred in favour of third person by means of a registered sale deed. On the basis of some direction given in a letter sent by a member of Board of Revenue to the office of the District Magistrate, an inquiry was initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who summoned various sale deeds from the office of the Sub Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar and on the basis of the said inquiry, the impugned order was passed declaring various sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners as void with the further direction that mutation proceedings, on the basis of the said sale deed, could not be entertained and an endorsement in this effect may be made in the khatauni. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate also issued a notice dated 8th August, 2005 to the petitioners informing that their sale deeds have been declared void and no mutation would be effected on the basis of the same.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that once a sale deed has been executed, the executive authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the same as void as the same can only be done by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that by a blanket order, the mutation proceedings, on the basis of the sale deed, also cannot be stopped because the authority entitle to pass the order of mutation, will himself examine the objections, if any, are received after advertisement and notice on the mutation application.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that since in the inquiry, it was found that though there were more than one co-sharer of the property under transfer, but sale deeds have not been executed by all the co-sharers, hence, the same have been declared as void and it has been directed that mutation may not be made on the basis of the said sale deeds.
We fail to understand how such an order can be passed by the executive authority. It may be open to the co-sharers to raise objections in an appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum, but by one stroke of pen, the sale deeds, in such a
3
manner, cannot be declared as void. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to place any such provision, which may entitle respondent no. 3 to pass such a general order.
In view of above facts and discussions, impugned order dated 30.07.2005 as well as notice dated 08.08.2005 are hereby quashed. Writ petition stands allowed.
It shall, however, be open to any of the affected parties to avail such remedy as may be available to him in law in respect of the said sale deeds, if he feel so aggrieved.”
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Siddhant Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether executive authorities have power to declare sale-deeds void under land revenue laws.
Whether mutation proceedings can be stopped by executive order prior to hearing objections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Kailash Rani and another Vs. State of U.P. and OthersReferred¶8
Writ Petition No. 3257 of 2006, Smt. Kailash Rani and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Kamal Datta and Another
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
