ADESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VINOD SINGH RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgments and orders impugned in this writ petition were passed in mutation proceedings. According to petitioner, his father along with respondent no. 2 and one Shri Babu Lal Sharma (husband of respondent no. 3) jointly purchased land bearing Khasra No. 73-Ka, ad measuring 0.0730 hectare and Khasra No. 91-Kha, ad measuring 0.0740, total 0.1470 hectare, situate in Village Bishangarh, Pargana Parwadoon, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun from one Mehar Singh, vide sale deed dtd. 7/12/1989; name of all the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records; respondent no. 2 and 3 sold their share in the land, jointly purchased with petitioner's father (Babu Lal Sharma), to respondent no. 1 vide sale deed dtd. 17/4/2006; after purchasing the share of respondent no. 2 and 3, respondent no. 1 applied for mutation of his name in the revenue record by moving an application under Sec. 34 of Land Revenue Act, which was allowed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dtd. 13/6/2008. Petitioner sought recall of the order dtd. 13/6/2008 by contending that since he is one of the co-owner of the land with respondent no. 2 and 3, who sold out the land in favour of respondent no. 1, therefore he has a right of hearing in the matter. Application for recall, made by petitioner, was dismissed by Tehsildar, Rishikesh vide order dtd. 10/4/2012. Petitioner thereafter filed appeal against Tehsildar's order, which was dismissed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rishikesh vide judgment dtd. 15/6/2016. Petitioner thereafter filed Revision No. 23 of 2015-16, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Garhwal vide judgment dtd. 25/11/2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders, passed by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings. It is common knowledge that mutation of name in revenue records is done for fiscal purposes, i.e. for collection of land revenue, and mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title. In the case of Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 223, Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the legal position in the following words:

(3.) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Bhan & Others v. Financial Commissioner & Others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186, has held as under: