Co-owner Must Be Notified Before Land Mutation: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the cancellation of a mutation order after finding that an existing co-owner had not been given notice before the change was made in the land records.

The court has also made it clear that the purchaser can seek mutation again, provided the application is processed in accordance with the law.

Mutation Challenged By Co-Owner

The petitioner had agreed to purchase 10 lechas (roughly 0.033 acres) of land, and later completed the transaction through a registered sale deed on March 12, 2008.

The Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, had subsequently recorded the mutation in the petitioner's name in March 2014.

The change in the revenue records was challenged by a co-owner of the land. Her name was already recorded against the same plot along with her brothers. Some of the brothers were also the persons from whom the petitioner had purchased the land.

Her grievance was that the mutation had been carried out without giving her notice.

The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), had accepted the objection and cancelled the mutation. The Assam Board of Revenue had later agreed with that decision. The purchaser then moved the High Court, challenging the Board's order.

Section 52 Makes Notice Mandatory

The High Court has stated that sending the notice is mandatory under Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which deals with the registration of names in land records.

The court has observed that when an application for registration is received, the Deputy Commissioner has to publish a notice. The notice must allow people who have objections to the registration, or who dispute the applicant's interest in the land, to put forward their claims.

The law also provides them an opportunity to appear before the authority on the date mentioned in the notice. That date has to be at least one month after the notice is issued.

In this case, the court has found that the co-owner's name was already recorded in connection with the same plot. Her status as a co-owner therefore, made it necessary to issue her notice, even though the petitioner had purchased only part of the larger property.

The court has held that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had correctly applied Section 52 in cancelling the mutation. It has also found no reason to interfere with the Assam Board of Revenue's decision.

New Mutation Application

The High Court found no legal error in the decision to cancel the mutation or in the Assam Board of Revenue's decision to uphold it.

The court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

The court has also clarified that the purchaser can approach the Circle Officer with a fresh mutation application based on the registered sale deed. The application will have to be dealt with in accordance with the law and the prescribed procedure.