Introduction:

In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the arbitrary rejection of a bona fide purchaser’s application for mutation of land records by the Municipal Commissioner of Udaipur. The case, Satya Narayan Tak v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., revolved around the petitioner’s rightful ownership of a plot purchased through a registered sale deed in 2023. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the pendency of a suit cannot be used as a pretext for officials to shirk their duties. This judgment sheds light on the undue harassment faced by genuine property owners due to administrative arbitrariness and baseless claims.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that he was a bona fide purchaser of the disputed plot, having obtained it through a registered sale deed. After acquiring the necessary permission from competent authorities, he initiated the construction of a residential building. While construction was ongoing, a third party (plaintiff) filed a suit in the trial court, claiming ownership of the property and seeking a temporary injunction. However, the application for injunction was dismissed by the trial court, and the appellate court upheld this dismissal. Despite these rulings, the petitioner’s application for mutating his name in the revenue records was rejected by the Municipal Commissioner on the grounds of the pending suit.

The petitioner argued that the rejection was baseless, as the sale of the plot was not in dispute, and the courts had already rejected the plaintiff’s claim for temporary injunction. He submitted that the authorities’ decision was arbitrary and constituted harassment, as it lacked any legal justification and disregarded the settled position of law.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, including the State Government and Municipal Commissioner, defended their decision by citing the pendency of the plaintiff’s suit. They argued that the ongoing litigation over the property’s ownership necessitated withholding the mutation of land records until the case was resolved. According to them, this approach was intended to prevent any potential legal complications or conflicting claims in the future.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court delivered a scathing critique of the Municipal Commissioner’s rejection of the mutation application. Justice Mathur observed that the pendency of a suit could not be a valid ground for denying the petitioner’s request to update the revenue records. The court underscored that the rejection was arbitrary, unreasonable, and demonstrated a lack of application of mind by the authorities.

The bench highlighted that the trial court had already dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction, a decision upheld by the appellate court. This, the court noted, established the petitioner’s legitimate right to the property. The rejection of the application for mutation, despite these judicial findings, was deemed frivolous and shocking.

The court also reaffirmed the principle that government officials are duty-bound to perform their responsibilities irrespective of pending litigation, provided no interim orders or injunctions are in place. By rejecting the petitioner’s application, the respondents had acted in contravention of this established legal principle.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to approve the petitioner’s application for mutation. The court mandated that the petitioner’s name be entered in the revenue records, thereby affirming his rights as the rightful owner of the property.