Registered document of lis pendens under Section 52 must be mutated in revenue records without judicial order.

The petitioner and respondents are co-owners of ancestral agricultural land in Village Khorana, Rajkot.

Following a dispute regarding a family partition and subsequent revenue entries, the petitioner initiated RTS proceedings.

During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents sold the subject land to a third party via a registered sale deed dated 10.04.2023.

Consequently, the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 2023 for the cancellation of the sale deed.

To protect the lis, the petitioner registered a 'notice of lis pendens' under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on 18.04.2024 (Registration No. 2906/2024).

However, the Mamlatdar (Respondent No. 2) refused to mutate the lis pendens entry in the revenue records on 24.04.2024, citing a Government Resolution dated 30.05.2022 which suggested such entries require a judicial order.

The court primarily applied Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (as amended for the State of Gujarat), which dictates that the principle of lis pendens applies to transactions entered after the institution of a suit provided a notice of such pendency is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

It further relied on the precedent established in Dipakbhai Manilal Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2007 2 GLR 1297), which holds that once a document of lis pendens is registered, the Mamlatdar is duty-bound to enter it into the revenue records under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, as the purpose of the entry is to provide public notice of pending litigation to potential purchasers.

The Court reasoned that the essential purpose of registering a notice of lis pendens is to ensure that prospective buyers are put on notice regarding ongoing litigation, preventing them from later claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice.

The Court found that the respondent's reliance on the Government Resolution (requiring a judicial order) was misplaced because the document in question was already a duly registered document under the Indian Registration Act.

Since the petitioner had already instituted a suit and registered the notice as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Mamlatdar’s refusal on technical administrative grounds was legally unsustainable.

The Court noted that the AGP could not dispute that the document was indeed registered.

It held that there is no bar to registering lis pendens once the document is registered and pertains to the subject land.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to treat the registered notice as a valid document and proceed with the mutation of the entry in the revenue records in accordance with the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and Rules.