Refusing Mutation Due To Pending Property Suit Despite Rejection Of Temporary Injunction Against Bonafide Purchaser 'Arbitrary': Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has expressed shock on the order of Municipal Commissioner of Udaipur, rejecting a bonafide purchaser's application for entering his name in Revenue Records on the grounds that a dispute was pending in the trial court regarding the property, despite the fact that the trial court had already rejected plaintiff's application of temporary injunction in that case.

The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that rejection of the petitioner's application by the authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable and without application of mind. It opined that it was a settled law that pendency of a suit could not be used as a ground by the government officials to not discharge their official duties.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by an individual (“petitioner”) who had purchased a plot by a registered sale deed in 2023. After getting permission from the competent authority for constructing a residential building on the plot, he started the construction of his house.

While the construction was underway, a third party (“plaintiff”) filed a suit in the trial court claiming herself to be the owner of the plot, along with an application for temporary injunction. This application was dismissed and the appeal against such dismissal was also rejected by the Appellate Court.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for mutation of the land records of the plot for getting his name entered, however the application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that a suit was pending against him in relation to the plot in the trial court. Against this order, the petition was preferred before the Court.

It was the case of the petitioner that he was a bonafide purchaser and the sale of the plot was not in dispute. Furthermore, the application by the plaintiff in the suit for temporary injunction was also rejected and the decision was upheld by the Appellate Court. Despite the same, he was being harassed by rejecting his application on very flimsy ground.

The Court aligned with the arguments put forth by the petitioner and stated that,

“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. This Court is shocked to see the ground on which the application preferred by the petitioner has been 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.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to accept the application by the petitioner for mutating the revenue records of the plot and entering his name.

Title: Satya Narayan Tak v State of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 382

Click Here To Read/Download Order