MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has made the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of learned Board of Revenue dated 13.02.2006 (Annexure-7) as also the judgment dated 14.07.2000 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur and the order dated 20.04.1999 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Collector, Alwar and the order dated 27.02.1998 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Tehsildar.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Sanwant entered into an agreement for sale in the year 1980 for the sale of agricultural land, as mentioned in the agreement. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement which ultimately came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner and the decree was confirmed vide order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.03.1997 and the S.L.P. filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1986 in the second appeal was dismissed.

(3.) As stated above, the agreement for sale was executed on 02.12.1980. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 having taken a loan from the respondent No.3-Bank mortgaged the land in dispute on 05.12.1995 during the pendency of the suit despite the fact that the decree by the learned Civil Court had been passed on 07.12.1987 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Since a decree for specific performance had been granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner, the petitioner put the decree to execution and the learned Civil Court executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.1997 and the decree dated 07.12.1987 passed by the learned trial court stood executed so far as the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner is concerned with registration of the sale-deed in Execution in 1997. The petitioner applied for necessary mutation based upon the aforesaid sale-deed in his favour before the Tehsildar. Since in the year 1995, the land had been mutated and mortgaged in favour of the respondent No.3-Bank had been entered in the revenue records after land was mortgaged by the defendant-judgment debtor in 1995 despite the decree having been passed in 1987 against him, the application filed by the petitioner for recording the name of the petitioner in the record of rights was rejected. It was rejected right upto the Board of Revenue and hence, this writ petition.