Mohd. Salik and Others v. Javed Ali and Others

respondent herein Mr. Raj Dev Singh Chandel is the owner of the property bearing khata no. 211 (fasli year 1428-1433), khasra no. 1142 kha, admeasuring 0.1560 hectare, khasra no. 1143, admeasuring 0.1730 hectare, khasra no. 1141 kha, admeasuring

0.0490 hectare, khasra no. 1141 ga, admeasuring 0.1250 hectare, khasra no. 1141gh, admeasuring 0.1260 hectare, khasra no. 1141 da, admeasuring 0.1210 hectare, khasra no. 1140, admeasuring

0.0190 hectare, khasra no. 1141 ka, admeasuring 0.0083 hectare, khasra no. 1142 ka, admeasuring 0.1000 hectare, khasra no. 1138 min., admeasuring 0.0024 hectare, total admeasuring 0.8797 hectare, situated at Mauza Hasanpur, Pargana Pachhuwadoon, District Dehradun, as well as the owner of the property bearing 1 khata no. 271 (fasli year 1416-1421), khasra no. 990 ga min., admeasuring 0.2709 hectare situated at Mauza Sherpur Pargana Pachhuwadoon, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

3. The performa respondent no. 3 executed registered sale agreement with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on

20.03.2024 and as per this agreement the sale deed has to be executed within 11 months from the date of sale agreement.

4. Before expiring the stipulated period as stipulated in the sale agreement dated 20.03.2024 the land, which was part of agreement to sale dated 20.03.2024 was subsequently sold to the petitioner by two registered sale deeds dated 28.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner’s name was recorded in the revenue record on a mutation proceedings initiated by the petitioner wherein the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein with whom the agreement to sale was executed by the respondent no. 3 filed their objections, which was rejected. Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 and 2 preferred a revision against the order of mutation before the Board of Revenue and Board of Revenue by order dated

28.02.2025 stayed the order of mutation and being aggrieved with the order of Board of Revenue, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser and have nothing to do with the sale agreement dated 20.03.2024 and this aspect has not been carefully dealt with by the Board of Revenue and stayed the order of mutation. He further submits that not only this, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 also filed a suit for cancellation of both the sale deeds dated 28.06.2024 and sale deed dated 07.06.2024, which was dismissed, against which a First Appeal was preferred before this court, which is pending for consideration for admission. He 2 submits that this fact has not been disclosed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the Board of Revenue while filing the revision and by suppressing this fact a revision was filed and the Revisional Court by ignoring all these important aspect of the matter stayed the order of mutation.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Swaleha Hussain for respondent nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that one fact has been suppressed by the petitioner in this case that a suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is pending in respect of the property in question in between the performa respondent no. 3 and one Pappu and this person is one of the witness in the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. She submits that this fact was very well in the knowledge of the petitioner that there was a pending suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in between the performa respondent no. 3 and one Pappu, but the same has been suppressed in this petition.

7. She argued that the petitioner have not approached with clean hands. Apart from this, she further argued that respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein could not prefer a suit for specific performance since before the period as stipulated in the sale agreement dated 20.03.2024 the sale deeds were executed by the performa respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioner, therefore, there was no option available to the respondent except to file a suit for cancellation of sale deed instead of filing a suit for specific performance. She further argued that an attempt was made to curtail the right of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to file a suit for specific performance because before the expiry of period as stipulated in the sale agreement dated 20.03.2024 already two 3 sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners by the performa respondent no. 3.

8. Apart from this, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 further submits that what would be the affect on the sale deed executed by the respondent no. 3 in favour of petitioner despite the fact that there was sale agreement dated 20.03.2024 is now the subject matter of the pending First Appeal, which is nothing but the continuation of the Original Suit. She submits that so far as the mutation part is concerned this is only for a limited purposes i.e. for fiscal purposes, and still in the present case the right has to be determined in the pending First Appeal.

9. I found force on the submission of learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. I have also gone through the order passed by the Board of Revenue and after gone through the order of the Board of Revenue, this court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue rightly stayed the mutation order. This fact cannot be ignored that the sale agreement was executed in between respondent no. 3 and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on

20.03.2024 and 11 months period was stipulated therein for the execution of the sale deed and it has been informed to this court by the learned counsel for the respondent that in addition to Rs. 8 lakhs, the reference of which has been given in the suit by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by different cheques in total Rs. 32 lakhs were paid by respondent nos. 1 and 2 to performa respondent no.

10. Be that as it may, undisputedly the question about the right of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as of petitioner is now the subject matter of the pending First Appeal No. 212 of 2024, therefore, in such an eventuality, if the Board of Revenue stayed 4 the order of mutation, I do not fine any illegality since the mutation is only meant for a limited purposes.

11. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. . . (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

16.04.2025 POOJA PR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=20de6817a968f6b259137535cd20ae0aabc071792cf3b967c166f1f9777d2df9, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=C1F86C3C515DA418A38C7E1A60389068B79D0D8CDF244993ED8CB408A9121F C3, cn=POOJA 5