Pending investigations or seizure of records by investigating agencies cannot justify indefinite delay in deciding mutation applications.

The petitioners purchased Plot No. 37 at Devendra Nagar, Raipur, via a registered sale deed dated 05.03.2019

Prior to the sale, the respondent authorities (Raipur Development Authority - RDA) issued a No Objection Certificate on 08.01.2019 after the petitioners paid a transfer fee of Rs. 23,63,894/-

Following the purchase, the petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the official records. When the RDA failed to act, the petitioners approached the High Court in WPC No. 995 of 2020, which resulted in a direction to the respondents to decide the application

On 04.09.2020, Respondent No. 4 rejected the mutation application solely on the ground that a complaint had been lodged regarding the plot

The respondents further contended that the relevant records were seized and under scrutiny by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), preventing a conclusive decision

1. Whether the rejection of a mutation application based solely on the pendency of a complaint is legally sustainable when the underlying sale deed and transfer permission remain valid.

2. Whether the seizure of property records by an investigative agency justifies the indefinite suspension of a citizen's right to seek mutation.

The court emphasized that mutation is a consequential administrative act based on available records and does not, by itself, confer title

The court’s reasoning was guided by the principles of Article 14 (right to equality/non-arbitrariness) and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law

the court applied the principle of administrative fairness, noting that the State cannot indefinitely delay the exercise of a right due to investigative hurdles when permissions and fees have already been accepted

The Court observed that the petitioners hold a valid, registered sale deed and that the RDA has neither revoked the transfer permission nor moved to cancel the deed

The Court found the RDA’s rejection based on a mere "complaint" to be insufficient to stall the mutation process indefinitely

While acknowledging that the records were in the custody of the EOW, the Court held that the petitioners' rights could not be left in abeyance.

It reasoned that a "balanced approach" was required: the RDA, as the competent authority, has a duty to secure access to the necessary records from the investigating agency for the limited purpose of adjudicating the mutation

The Court determined that the unavailability of documents due to a lawful investigation does not extinguish the authority’s obligation to decide an application once the records are accessible for inspection

The Court held that the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh mutation application

It directed the respondent authorities to approach the EOW to obtain access or temporary use of the seized records for adjudication

The EOW was directed to consider such requests in accordance with law and permit inspection

Finally, the RDA was ordered to decide the mutation application through a reasoned and speaking order upon the availability of records, without being influenced by the Court's lack of expression on the merits