SAHAB SINGH Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.N. Sharma and the learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition has been filed against an order passed by respondents by which on an application filed by the respondents, their names have been directed to be recorded in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed executed. The petitioners submit that the petitioners and respondent no. 6 are the sons and father which is apparent from the pedigree mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition. Petitioners no. 1 and 2 are the sons of the first wife Smt. Kishan Pyari and Ombir and Vijay Bir are the sons of another wife Prakashi wife of Dev Singh. There was a written family settlement on 30.4.1999 regarding the distribution of the property between the petitioners and the respondents. The property in dispute has come in the share of the petitioners on the basis of the said family settlement. To defeat the claim of the petitioners respondent no. 6 has sold the said property in favour of respondents no. 4 and 5 vide sale dated 25.11.2006. On the basis of the family settlement the petitioners as well as the respondents made an application for mutating their names in the revenue record. On the basis of the sale deed, the Prescribed Authority has recorded the names of respondents no. 4 and 5 and on the application filed by the petitioners no order has been passed. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order have filed an appeal. The appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable and the revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed. An argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the family settlement was binding upon the parties and in the family settlement there was a term and condition that respondent no. 6 will not sell away the property which is in share of the petitioners on the basis of family settlement but inspite of the aforesaid fact, the property has been sold and the competent authority has mutated the name of the purchaser on the basis of the said sale deed. The appeal filed by the petitioners has been rejected as not maintainable and the revision too has been dismissed. In such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed. I have perused the record. If there was any family settlement according to the petitioners and if that was binding upon the parties, it can only be enforced by the court of law. Admittedly on the written family settlement as alleged, no seal has been put by the competent court of law. Therefore, in my opinion, if it is violated or certain terms and conditions have not been followed by one of the parties, then the best course open to the petitioners or any aggrieved party will be to get that family settlement enforced by the court of law by way of filing a suit before the competent court. Recording the names of the petitioners in the revenue record does not accrue any right to the parties. Admittedly it is a summary proceeding. If according to the petitioners the sale deed has been executed by respondent no. 6 in favour of respondents no. 4 and 5 in violation of the terms and conditions of the family settlement, it is open to the petitioners to get the said sale deed cancelled from the competent court of law enforcing the family settlement between the parties. While recording the name of purchaser competent authority has recorded a finding that there is a registered sale deed which shows that the consideration has been paid, therefore, there is no option except to pass an order in favour of a person in whose favour the sale deed has been executed. In my opinion, it does not confirm or create any right or title upon respondents no. 4 and 5 by passing an order recording the name on the basis of the said sale deed. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can file a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed executed by respondent no. 6 in favour of respondents no. 4 and 5 placing reliance upon the family settlement. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. It is however, open to the petitioners to file a suit with an injunction application regarding their dispossession. If such application is filed, that may be considered and decided on merit first before deciding other applications. No order is passed as to costs.