Mere Pendency Of Suit Not A Ground For Rejecting Application By Bonafide Purchaser For Mutation Entry: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that it will be 'unreasonable' and 'arbitrary' to deny mutation entry to bonafide purchaser due to pending suit after petition for temporary injunction is rejected.
The Court was considering a Writ Petition against the order passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, whereby, the application preferred by the Petitioner for entering his name in Revenue Records (for mutation) was rejected.
The single-bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed, "...Despite rejection of the stay application/temporary injunction application of Smt. Shobha Kunwar, the respondents are not entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue record on the basis of the pending suit, which in the opinion of this Court appears to be absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable," the Court observed.
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sanjay Nahar while Respondent was represented Advocate Anurag Shukla.
The Petitioner purchased the plot in question and after it, duely approached the competent authority for granting permission for construction of the residential building, which was granted. While the construction was in progress, one Smt. Shobha Kunwar claimed herself to be the owner of the plot in question, filed a suit before the Trial Court along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court dismissed the application for Temporary Injunction and the Appeal against the same was duely rejected as well. The petitioner, while undertaking the construction of the building in question, had filed an application for mutation of the subject piece of land in his name, however, the application was rejected on the ground that a suit is pending against him before the Trial Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the subject piece of land and the sale of the plot of the petitioner is not in dispute. He further submitted that due permission for construction of the house was granted by the competent authorities in pursuance of which, the petitioner is undertaking the construction of his house. The Counsel also submitted that despite the application for temporary injunction having been rejected by the Trial Court and the appeal against the same has also been rejected, as such, the respondent authorities were harassing the petitioner by rejecting his application for mutation entries.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is no impediment for the Respondents to enter the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records of the subject piece of land. Despite that, on a very flimsy ground, the application preferred for mutation of the land in the name of petitioner was rejected.
The Court was 'shocked' to see the ground on which the application was rejected.
"The petitioner is rightfully entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records, but on the absolutely frivolous ground, the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected," the Court observed.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Satya Narayan vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:48962)
Appearances:
Petitioner- Advocate Sanjay Nahar, Advocate Dhruv Gehlot, Advocate Pushkar Taimni
Respondent- Advocate Anurag Shukla
Click here to read/ download Order:
