The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that revenue authorities cannot indefinitely withhold mutation of property records merely because an investigation is pending. The judgment establishes that procedural fairness demands that authorities seek access to seized documents rather than deny relief on speculative grounds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Kishore Doultani and Jagdish Doultani (WPC No. 1419 of 2021), and Jyoti Doultani and Rekha Doultani (WPC No. 1507 of 2021), sought mutation of their names as lawful transferees of Plot No. 37 in Devendra Nagar, Raipur. The respondents, including the Raipur Development Authority and the Revenue Officer (Tehsildar), rejected their applications on the ground that a complaint had been lodged concerning the plot, without providing any adjudication or evidence of wrongdoing by the petitioners.
Key Facts
- Plot Nos. 36 and 37 were originally allotted by the Raipur Development Authority to prior owners.
- On 22.12.2018, the competent authority communicated terms for transfer, including payment of a transfer fee of Rs. 23,63,894/-.
- The petitioners paid the full transfer fee and obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 08.01.2019.
- A registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners was executed on 05.03.2019.
- Applications for mutation were filed on 25.03.2019 and 28.11.2019.
- No action was taken on these applications, prompting the petitioners to file WPC No. 995 of 2020.
- On 20.05.2020, this Court directed the respondents to decide the mutation application.
- On 04.09.2020, the Revenue Officer rejected the application, citing pendency of a complaint.
- The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has seized the records relating to the plot and is conducting an investigation.
- No proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners.
- The permission granted on 08.01.2019 and the registered sale deed remain unrevoked.
Procedural History
- 22.12.2018: Competent authority communicated transfer terms and fee requirement.
- 08.01.2019: No Objection Certificate issued for transfer of Plot No. 37.
- 05.03.2019: Registered sale deed executed in favour of petitioners.
- 25.03.2019: First mutation application filed.
- 28.11.2019: Second mutation application filed.
- 20.05.2020: WPC No. 995 of 2020 disposed of with direction to decide mutation application.
- 04.09.2020: Revenue Officer rejected mutation application citing complaint pendency.
- 14.04.2021: WPC No. 1419 of 2021 filed.
- 14.04.2021: WPC No. 1507 of 2021 filed.
- 20.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 and a direction to the respondents to mutate their names as lawful owners of Plot No. 37 in the revenue records.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a revenue authority may lawfully reject an application for mutation solely on the ground that a complaint is pending and records are under investigation by the Economic Offences Wing, without seeking access to those records or providing any adjudication against the applicant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioners acquired the property through a registered sale deed after obtaining all statutory permissions and paying the full transfer fee. The permission and sale deed remain valid and unchallenged. The rejection on the basis of an unproven complaint, without any inquiry or adverse finding against the petitioners, violates principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of the Constitution. The respondents are estopped from denying mutation after accepting the transfer fee and issuing the NOC.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel contended that mutation is only a revenue entry and does not confer title. The pendency of a complaint before the Economic Offences Wing necessitates caution. The records are under lawful seizure and cannot be accessed without the EOW’s permission. The rejection is therefore a precautionary measure, not a denial of rights.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that mutation is a consequential administrative act, dependent on available records. However, it emphasized that the mere existence of a complaint or investigation cannot justify indefinite inaction. The respondents admitted that the records are under the custody of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), but failed to demonstrate that the petitioners were implicated or that any adverse finding had been made.
"It is well settled that mutation is a consequential act and the same is required to be considered by the competent authority on the basis of available records. If such records are under lawful custody of an investigating agency, appropriate steps may be taken for securing access to the same for limited purposes, in accordance with law."
The Court held that the respondents’ refusal to act amounted to an abdication of duty. The petitioners’ rights to use and enjoy their property cannot remain suspended indefinitely due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court rejected the argument that mutation is merely a revenue formality, noting that denial of mutation effectively denies the petitioners the ability to exercise ownership rights, including sale, mortgage, or succession.
The Court further observed that the EOW’s investigation, even if legitimate, does not automatically invalidate the petitioners’ title or the validity of the transfer. The burden lies on the authorities to facilitate access to records for adjudication, not to use the investigation as a shield for inaction.
The Verdict
The writ petitions were disposed of with directions. The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh application for mutation. The respondent authorities must approach the Economic Offences Wing to obtain access to the seized records for the limited purpose of deciding the mutation application. Upon receipt of such records, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order on the mutation application within 60 days. The Court explicitly stated it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mutation Cannot Be Delayed Indefinitely Due to Investigation
- Practitioners must now argue that pending investigations do not justify administrative paralysis.
- Authorities must proactively seek access to seized records rather than use them as an excuse for inaction.
- Delay in mutation without a final adjudication violates Article 300-A and the right to property.
Access to Records Is a Procedural Duty, Not a Discretionary Option
- Revenue authorities have a duty to coordinate with investigating agencies to obtain records for adjudication.
- A request to the EOW or CBI for limited access to documents for mutation purposes is legally permissible and expected.
- Failure to make such a request renders the rejection arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Registered Title Trumps Administrative Hesitation
- A valid registered sale deed coupled with statutory permissions creates a prima facie right to mutation.
- Absence of any adverse finding against the transferee negates the relevance of third-party complaints.
- Authorities must distinguish between investigating third-party allegations and adjudicating the transferee’s claim.
