The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging mutation and a sale deed regarding inheritance disputes. The court held that the sale deed could not be assailed via writ while the Civil Court matter was pending and directed the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court and Appellate Authority for relief.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 14th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1386 of 2022
Between:-
1. RAJNI
2. CHANDAN AGED 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI PARVEEN NAG, R/O VILLAGE, PO & TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
…...PETITIONERS
(BY MR. ARUN SEHGAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-171 002
2. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
3. SHRI SHAVNEET S/O SMT. SHASHI BALA, D/O SHRI DESH RAJ & W/O SHRI MANGAT RAM
- 2 -
4. SMT. KIRAN BALA D/O SHRI DESH RAJ & W/O SH. MANGAT RAM
5. SMT. MADHU BALA D/O SH. DESH RAJ & W/O SH. KESHAV DUTT SHARMA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE THER, P.O. KUTEHAR, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
6. SMT. PROMILA D/O SH. DESH RAJ & W/O SH. RAMESH SHARMA, R/O V.P.O. LANJ, TEHSIL HARCHAKIAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
7. ARCHANA
8. SMT. NAVEEN GAUTAM W/O SH. ROOP LAL GAUTAM
9. SUKAUNTI D/O SMT. BRINDA D/O SH. DESH RAJ
10. NISHA D/O SMT. BRINDA D/O SH. DESH RAJ
11. RACHNA D/O SMT. BRINDA D/O SH. DESH RAJ
12. MANOJ S/O SMT. BRINDA D/O SH. DESH RAJ, ALL RESIDENTS OF V.P.O. DODHAMB, TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
13. MANOJ SINGH S/O SHRI DHANI RAM S/O SHRI JASWANT SINGH,
(MR. ADARSH SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1 & R-2)
- 3 -
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following:
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-Rajni and Chandan, challenging mutation of inheritance attested in favour of respondents No.3 to 12, vide order dated 28.07.2016 by respondent No.2-Executive Magistrate, Shahpur and also the sale deed dated 27.08.2021, executed by respondents No.3 to 12 in favour of respondent No.13.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents No.3 to 12 filed a suit for declaration. Alongwith the suit, they have also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners filed written statement thereto as well as reply to the application for interim injunction. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2015, directed both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction over the suit land. Even then, respondent No.2 in connivance with respondents No.3 to 12, attested mutation in their favour. This was in breach of the status quo order passed by the Civil Court.
3. The aforesaid order dated 28.07.2016, attesting the mutation in favour of respondents No.3 to 12, was assailed by the
- 4 -
petitioners by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. The Appellate Authority, i.e. SDO (Civil) Shahpur, passed an order dated 19.08.2017, restraining the respondents from dispossessing/alienating the suit land till disposal of the appeal. Even then, respondents No.3 to 12 in breach of the restraint order, have executed the sale deed on 27.08.2021 in favour of respondent No.13. Respondent No.13 taking advantage of this situation, as on 14.02.2022, tried to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the suit property.
4. In our considered view, the sale deed cannot be assailed in the scope of writ petition by the petitioners, particularly, when the matter is still pending before the Civil Court, albeit at the instance of respondents No.3 to 12. The petitioners can also have their remedy against sale deed as may be available to them before the competent Court having jurisdiction. As far as the breach of status quo order passed by the learned Trial Court on 03.08.2015 and thereafter the restraint order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. SDO (Civil), Shahpur, dated 19.08.2017 are concerned, the petitioners have to approach the said Court and Authority in accordance with the provisions of law. If the petitioners have apprehension of dispossession from the disputed land at the hands of respondent No.13, they should take their remedy before either of
- 5 -
them. If the order is not followed, it is for the Appellate Authority/ SDO/Civil Court concerned to take such action as may be open under law.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the
merits of the case either way.
( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice
( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
March 14, 2022 R.Atal/Mukesh
Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be used to assail a sale deed while the matter is pending before the Civil Court.
Whether the remedy lies before the Civil Court or the Appellate Authority regarding breach of status quo orders in land disputes.
Whether to dispose of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying claim.
Rajni
Chandan
State of Himachal Pradesh
Executive Magistrate Shahpur
Smt. Kiran Bala
Rajni
Mohammad Rafiq
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
