GOAN MUTATIONS: WHAT GOVERNMENT MUST DO.
By Valmiki Faleiro The mess of mutations is rampant. This I gauged from reader response to this columnon the five preceding Sundays. Most told the same story: of how people are harassed atMamlatdar offices across Goa when they seek a change in the Index of Lands – asimple process in law, but far from it in practice. A gentleman who heads a trade bodyfeels listing the steps will help government mitigate the troubles of the ‘Aam Aadmi’.Fingers crossed, here is my list:
1. Enforce Sections 96 (proviso 2) and 102 of the Land Revenue Code, and Rule 15 ofRecord of Rights & Register of Cultivators Rules. The onus of initiating and carrying outmutations lies squarely with the Taluka Sub-Registrar and Mamlatdar when landownership changes occur by documents under the Transfer of Property Act (that areregistered under the Indian Registration Act.)
Just enforce the existing law! Ninety percent of the scourge Goans now face will vanish.When people acquire rights by way of a registered deed, the process of mutation mustfollow automatically – no question of them even applying for mutation, much lessrepeatedly visiting, begging and bribing all and sundry at Mamlatdar offices. That is whatthe law stipulates. No government has enforced the law, resulting in the mutation mess across Goa.
What the law provides is simple. When a Sub-Registrar registers a deed – sale, gift,partition, relinquishment, etc. – he must, during the first week of the following month,intimate the Talathi/Mamlatdar in Form XIII. Upon receipt of such intimation, the lattermust carry out the mutation, ‘mutatis mutandis’, as per procedure laid down in detail.Where, then, would be the scope for harassment and extortion? Of people having toapply, meet, beg and bribe revenue officials?
2. As regards the balance ten percent cases, where land ownership changes occur byother means, viz.- a Court decree, judicial partition, ‘Inventario,’ Will/bequest, etc., onceagain, follow the law and established conventions. These are listed, briefly, below.The mutation applicant’s duty must end, as envisaged under the law, with reporting ofthe acquisition of rights (with evidence) to the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, as per present law,the onus of completing the mutation, must lie squarely with the Mamlatdar and his staff.A private citizen must not be turned into a public clerk and peon, as now happens.
3. When a person applies to add his name to a survey number where mutations havepreviously been carried out, s/he must not be asked to furnish addresses of persons soadded. Because these addresses are already with the concerned Talathi/Mamlatdar whothemselves carried out the previous mutations.
4. The stupid idea of asking the applicant to furnish the latest Form I & XIV must stop.The concerned Talathi/Mamlatdar are themselves the custodians of this document! 5.
The law provides for oral mutation applications. It would be injudicious to retain thisprovision. But, for heaven’s sake, when someone applies in writing, don’t ask him/her toprovide a file. The government has crores to splurge on needless bridges and dubiousgarbage handling purchases – but not a few lakhs for essential stationery?
6. Across the board, every entry clerk in every government office must acknowledge aninward letter with the office rubber stamp.
7. Upon receipt of intimation from the Sub-Registrar (in case of registered documents)and report from acquirer of rights (in case of other documents), fix a time limit for issueof Notice/s in Form X. Notice/s should be sent only to people whose names appear inForm I & XIV, not to consenting parties, etc. whose names appear in the Sale Deed.
8. No applicant must be asked to make copies of Form X on behalf of the state.
9. Form X, as done before, should be served by hand through the office bailiff or theconcerned village Talathi. If logistics do not permit hand delivery, service may be doneby Registered AD Post. But not by the applicants who are currently told to do the mailing!This will also eliminate the ‘vanishing trick’ of AD cards and the ensuing rigmarole.
10. In exceptional cases where service by hand or by Registered AD Post is impossible,substituted service should be effected by the Government – at its own cost. It is agovernment notice and the government must serve it. The applicant should NOT bemade to pay for a duty of the government.
11. Substituted service by way of Public Notice should be released to one English andone vernacular daily for better reach and avoidance of mischief.
12. Let the dead lie in peace. Stop this nonsense of ‘serving’ notices upon the departed.If a respondent is deceased, notify the heirs by substituted service. Officials who fightshy to carry out mutation involving a dead person – even when a Court ‘Inventario’ orderis furnished, need to be disciplined. As do Talathis, Circle Inspectors and Mamlatdarswho, despite being unqualified, raise specious “objections” on legalities of Sale Deeds.
13. Village Panchayats, Municipalities – and even Mamlatdars! – need to be educatedon the legal value of Form I & XIV. That it is not a proof of title and that its entire value ismerely presumptive. When an applicant files a Sale/Gift (or such title) deed, local bodiesmust not insist on Form I & XIV featuring the applicant’s name. In a different context, butrelevant to the issue, was a recent statement by the Salcete Mamlatdar, as reported in‘Herald’ (Pg.3 anchor, Nov 22, 2008.)
The Mamlatdar is quoted having said, “These [old Matriz records] are not much in use,since the present survey and revenue plan also constitute revenue documents.”Revenue records alright, but of what legal value? A quasi-judicial order of a DistrictCollector spelt out the almost NIL legal value of Form I & XIV.
People like the Salcete Mamlatdar also need to know that a Sub-Registrar cannotregister a deed unless the mention of ‘Matriz’ is made in the description of the property.The Salcete Mamlatdar alone cannot be blamed. All Mamlatdars without law studiesmust be put through a crash-course on Goa’s basic laws.
14. Modify the software used for maintaining revenue records, to rid it of shortcomings.For instance, the software must be changed to accept a common Mutation Case No. in ajoint application involving a common survey number. This will avoid multiplicity of casesand save immense amounts of time, paper and money.
15. In cases involving sub-division of land, the Director of Settlement & Land Recordsand his Taluka-level Inspectors must be directed to exercise their powers under Section59(c) of the LRC. When a survey number is sub-divided with final approvals under theTown & Country Planning Act, it must be partitioned as per the approved sub-division.This will save a multiplicity of future individual partitions, its attendant ills, and humanerrors while transcribing plots at different points of time on the survey sheets. Suchpartitions must be carried out not only on the PT sheets at the taluka level but also onthe originals at Panjim headquarters.
16. And finally, appoint an Ombudsman/disciplinary authority specifically for complaintsunder the Land Revenue Code, with jurisdiction over the Director of Settlement & LandRecords and Deputy Collector downwards. Such measures will provide the beleaguered Goan some relief. (ENDS.)
The Valmiki Faleiro weekly column at:
Francis de Tuem
