The Rajasthan High Court stated that just because a lawsuit is pending, it is not a valid reason to deny a genuine buyer’s request for a mutation entry.
The Rajasthan High Court has stated that it would be ‘unreasonable’ and ‘arbitrary’ to refuse mutation entry to a genuine buyer simply because there is a pending lawsuit after a temporary injunction request has been denied. The Court was reviewing a Writ Petition challenging the decision made by the Municipal Corporation Commissioner, who rejected the Petitioner’s request to have his name added to the Revenue Records for mutation. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur noted, “…Even after the rejection of the stay application from Smt. Shobha Kunwar, the respondents are not updating the revenue record with the petitioner’s name due to the ongoing suit, which this Court finds to be completely arbitrary and unreasonable.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Sanjay Nahar, while Advocate Anurag Shukla represented the Respondent. The Petitioner bought the plot in question and subsequently sought permission from the relevant authority to build a residential structure, which was approved. During construction, Smt. Shobha Kunwar claimed ownership of the plot and filed a lawsuit along with a request for a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed her injunction request, and her appeal was also rejected. While continuing construction, the Petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his name, but his application was denied due to the pending lawsuit against him.
The Petitioner’s lawyer argued that the Petitioner is a genuine buyer of the land in question, and the sale is not being contested. He added that the necessary permission for building a house was granted by the appropriate authorities, allowing the Petitioner to proceed with construction. The lawyer also pointed out that even though the Trial Court denied the request for a temporary injunction and the appeal was also turned down, the respondent authorities continued to trouble the Petitioner by rejecting his request for updating the land records. He emphasized that there is no valid reason for the Respondents to refuse to update the Petitioner’s name in the land records. Yet, the application for this update was dismissed on weak grounds.
The Court expressed surprise at the reasons for the rejection. It stated, “The petitioner has a rightful claim to have his name updated in the land records, but the application was dismissed on completely trivial grounds.” Consequently, the Petition was granted.
Cause Title: Satya Narayan vs. State Of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:48962)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Sanjay Nahar, Advocate Dhruv Gehlot, Advocate Pushkar Taimni
Respondent: Advocate Anurag Shukla
