LAWS(GAU)-1962-3-3

GURUMAYUM KANHAI SHARMA Vs. MD. ABULATIF MIA

Decided On March 14, 1962
Gurumayum Kanhai Sharma Appellant
V/S
Md. Abulatif Mia Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution and Section 561 -A Cr. P. C. to set aside the order passed by the S. D. C. I. W. T. on 6 -9 -1961.

(2.) THE respondent herein applied to the S. D. C. I. W. T. in September, 1959, for transfer of patta in respect of plot No. 193 in patta No. 99 on the strength of a sale deed in his name from the owners of the land. The petitioner objected to it and produced a receipt from one Gulam Rasul as Ext. B1 agreeing to sell the said land to him and he also claimed to be in possession of the land. In the proceeding, Gulam Rasul came and deposed in favour of the respondent and stated that the said document produced by the petitioner was a forgery. The S. D. C. did not go into the question of the genuineness or otherwise of the document, but said that there was doubt about the actual sale -in favour of the respondent and so the mutation in favour of the respondent was kept in abeyance and parties were directed to go to the Civil Court to decide the matter. This order was passed on 23 -6 -1960.

(3.) IT was contended for the petitioner that the S. D. C. had no jurisdiction to grant mutation under Sections 50 to 54 of the Land and Revenue Regulation and that the mutation proceedings before the S. D. C. I. W. T. were, therefore, totally without jurisdiction, that the S. D. C., cannot, therefore, be said to have been acting as a Revenue Court and that therefore the S. D. C. cannot hold any enquiry under Section 476 Cr. P. C. or make a complaint and that the entire proceedings taken before the S. D. C. both under Sections 50 to 54 of the Land and Revenue Regulation as well as under Section, 476 Cr. P. C. are without jurisdiction and that the order passed in the latter proceedings to send the document to an Expert should therefore be set aside. My attention was also drawn in that connection to the order passed by me in Civil Writ Case No. 2 of 1959 in which I had held that S. D. Cs. did not have the power of a Deputy Commissioner under the Land and Revenue Regulation to hold mutation proceedings under Sections 50 to 54 of the said regulation and to grant pattas.