WRIT PETITION 9062 of 1990 on 30 November 1989

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed :- “Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to addressarguments.Adjourned to 29.11.2010.”

Today none has entered appearance for the petitioner even on second call.

This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 3.9.1987, 22.12.1987, 30.11.1989 and 7.2.1990, Annexures P-1 to P-4

C.W.P No. 9062 of 1990

respectively, whereby the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of theoriginal mortgagor instead of the petitioner who is claimed to be thesubsequent mortgagee. Originally, the revenue authorities declined tosanction mutation in favour of the petitioner on the ground that thesubsequent mortgage created in his favour was merely a device to save theland of the original mortgagor who was a big landowner. The plea that thatview is wrong is not meritless. However, the Financial Commissioner hasheld as follows :- “ 3.In mutation proceedings, the revenue officers donot decide the question of title. Redemption can,therefore, by normally be allowed only to the extent ofagreement between both the parties or on the basis of acourt order. In this case respondent No.2, originalmortgagee, has accepted redemption in favour ofrespondent No.1 mortgagor, for Rs.4200/-. The AssistantCollector has, therefore, rightly sanctioned theredemption to this extent and has rightly ordered that ifthere is a further mortgage from respondent No.1 to thepetitioner, a separate mutation be got entered for thatpurpose. There is no illegality or infirmity in theseorders. Revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.”

In this view of the matter, there is no bar for the petitioner toapply for a fresh mutation from the original mortgagor but he cannot beallowed to challenge the mutation in favour of the original mortgagor.Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissedwith no order as to costs.

December 02, 2010. `kk'

( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE