Revenue entries may be restored pending appeal, subject to its outcome and without determining possession.

The petitioners claimed to have purchased 9 acres 13 guntas in R.S. No. 104/*/5 at Karajaga Village under a registered sale deed dated 7 November 2022.

Mutation entry MR No. H-32/2022-23 was made in their names on 9 December 2022.

Respondent No. 5 challenged the mutation, relying on an alleged 1996 agreement of sale and a specific-performance suit, O.S. No. 49/2021.

The Assistant Commissioner set aside the mutation, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioners’ revision on 11 January 2024.

The plaint in O.S. No. 49/2021 was later rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; an appeal against that order was pending, with an interim application also filed.

The petitioners sought restoration of the mutation, offering not to create third-party rights pending the appeal.

Respondent No. 5 disputed their entitlement and asserted possession.

1. Whether the petitioners’ names should be restored in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed, notwithstanding the pending appeal arising from the rejection of the specific-performance suit

2. Whether the restoration should be subject to safeguards pending that appeal, including restrictions on altering the entries or creating third-party rights, while leaving the possession dispute open

The Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioners’ revenue entries had been made pursuant to a registered sale deed, while respondent No. 5 asserted an interest under an agreement of sale that was the subject of pending civil proceedings.

The Court treated restoration of the entries as capable of being made subject to the outcome of the pending appeal and imposed a restraint against altering the entries or creating third-party rights during its pendency.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying plaint had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the mutation had been based on a registered sale deed, whereas respondent No. 5’s competing claim rested on an agreement of sale and remained connected to pending appellate proceedings after rejection of the plaint.

In light of those circumstances and the petitioners’ undertaking, it directed restoration of the entries but made them subject to the outcome of the appeal and prohibited the petitioners from altering the entries or creating third-party rights meanwhile.

Because possession was disputed, the Court did not decide that question and left respondent No. 5 free to seek appropriate relief before the appellate court.

The petitioners were restrained from altering the revenue entries or creating third-party rights during the appeal; the possession dispute was left for the appellate court to consider on its merits.

The judgment refers to the pending appeal as R.A. No. 16/2026 in paragraph 7, but as R.A. No. 16/2016 in paragraphs 13 and 15.