Md. Syed Idris Ali v. Md. Mumtaz Ali & Ors.

B E F O R E HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR For the petitioner : Mr. H. Nabachandra, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. O. Kiranjit Date of Order : 06-05-2022 O R D E R [1] Challenge in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to the order dated 04-06-2019 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. 72 of 2014. [2] By the said order, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 07-09-2006 passed by the Sub-Deputy Collector (SDC), Keirao Bitra, in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/KBT/2006. Thereby, the SDC, Keirao Bitra, took note of the registered gift deed bearing Document No. 918 dated 07-09-2006 and effected mutation in favour of Md. Syed Idris Ali, the petitioner herein. However, the Tribunal invalidated this mutation order and directed the Revenue authorities to restore the name of the original pattadar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. On 08-07-2019, interim stay was granted by this Court in relation to the impugned order and it was continued thereafter from time to time. [3] Heard Mr. H. Nabachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. O. Kiranjit, learned counsel for the principal respondent. [4] Facts relevant to this adjudication may be summed up as under — Moulubi Yusuf Ali was the original pattadar of the subject homestead land under Patta No. 9 (old)/244 (new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 149 measuring an area of 0.53 acre in Village No. 50-Kiyamgei. He is stated to be no more. CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 37 of 2019 He had eight children, viz., six sons and two daughters. Four of the six sons died. The other two sons and two daughters are now litigating over this homestead land. According to Md. Syed Idris Ali, the said homestead land was gifted to him under the registered gift deed dated 07-09-2006. However, his siblings contest his claim on the ground that Moulubi Yusuf Ali died intestate on 11-02-1989 itself. It was on this basis that they filed the subject revenue revision case before the Tribunal challenging the mutation order dated 07-09-2006. [5] Perusal of the impugned order dated 04-06-2019 passed by the Tribunal reflects total non-application of mind. So much so that the Tribunal did not even get the relationship of the parties correctly. Petitioner No. 1 and the principal respondent in the said case were described as brothers of late Yusuf Ali, though they were actually his sons and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were his daughters. Further, the Tribunal did not even voice any reason for its final decision and merely stated that ‘the Lower Court had failed to exercise the provision of law under Section 46 of the MLR & LR Act, 1960’ and set aside the order dated 07-09-2006 in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/KBT/2006. Consequently, the Tribunal directed restoration of the name of the original pattadar, who was admittedly no more. [6] This superficial approach on the part of the Tribunal leaves a lot to be desired. The order dated 07-09-2006 clearly bears out that the mutation was effected by the SDC, Keirao Bitra, on the basis of a registered gift deed. As to whether the registered gift deed was valid or whether it was legal was not an issue that could have been decided by the Revenue authorities or by the Tribunal. As long as the said gift deed remained, the Revenue authorities were bound thereby and necessarily had to give effect to it under Section 46 (2) of the MLR & LR Act, 1960. In consequence, the other children of late CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 37 of 2019 Yusuf Ali could not have challenged the mutation order passed by the SDC, Keirao Bitra, on the strength of the said registered gift deed without first challenging the said registered gift deed and seeking its cancellation. [7] The order passed by the Tribunal ignoring these issues is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. In consequence, the order dated 07-09-2006 in Mutation Case No. 112/SDC/KBT/2006 passed by the SDC, Keirao Bitra, shall stand restored. The civil revision petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE Victoria NINGOM BAM VICTORIA VICTORIA 16:28:08 +05'30' CRP(C.R.P. Art.227) No. 37 of 2019