- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2009 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellants and has upheld the order passed by the learned Board of Revenue which had upheld the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk dated 31.05.1995 in the matter of recording of mutation.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, which are not disputed are that the land in question was recorded in the name of one Narayan. After Narayan's death the question of recording the mutation arose as his son Bajranga was not available and was reported to have absconded as a result the mutation entries were made in favour of one Ramnath who was not an heir of Narayan, the deceased and recorded khatedar of the land in question. After the mutation entries had been recorded, Bajranga who had been absconding appeared and challenged the order of mutation upon which the Collector passed an order directing the Tehsildar to reopen the matter and decide the same afresh. THE Tehsildar thereafter upheld the original order in favour of Ramnath against which an appeal came to be filed by Bajranga before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk. In appeal, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk set aside the order of Tehsider holding that recording of mutation in favour of Ramnath in the face of the fact that Narayan was survived by his heir and son Bajranga. As such the order could not be upheld and as such the said order of the Tehsildar was set aside. Against the judgment of Sub Divisional Officer, an appeal came to be preferred before the Additional Divisional Commissioner which came to be allowed and against the decision of the Additional Divisional Commissioner a revision was filed before the learned Board of Revenue and the revision filed by Bajranga came to be allowed by the learned Board of Revenue directing to restore the judgment of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tonk dated 31.05.1995 in favour of Bajranga. A review petition also came to be filed but the same was also dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue. Against the aforesaid two judgments of the learned Board of Revenue, a writ petition came to be filed before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are bonafide purchasers from Ramnath and they ought to have been heard and should have been impleaded as party to the appeal. He further submitted that the question of reopening of mutation was barred by limitation. We have considered the aforesaid submission and we are of the view that it is settled proposition of law that mutation is merely fiscal entry and does not confer any right on the party with regard to title, etc. over the land. In the present case, Narayan admittedly was survived by his heir Bajranga who is his son and once the son who is the heir of the first class was there, no other person could have been entitled to inherit the khatedari rights in the land of Narayan who is not an heir of the first class as per the schedule and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Even assuming that Bajranga was absconding that could not, in our view, confer any right on Ramnath or any other person to succeed and have the land of Narayan mutated in his favour. In the facts and circumstances Ramnath himself was not entitled to succeed to the land in dispute and the khatedari could not be conferred on him of the land which was originally in the name of Narayan who had the son namely Bajranga living even if he was absconding. Ramnath would not have been entitled to any right, title or interest in the land in question. When Ramnath could not have inherited the land in question and no right, title or interest in the land of Narayan are conferred upon him, Ramnath could not confer any better title to the present appellants who are said to be bonafide purchasers from Ramnath. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal as well as the stay application accordingly stand dismissed. The interim order dated 15.07.2009 passed by this Court stands vacated.;