C.W.P.No.21918 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.21918 of 2011
Date of Decision:25.11.2011
Jagsir Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the
limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ
petition and emanating from the record, is that Bhagwan Kaur wife of Gurdev
Singh-respondent No.4 (vendor) was the recorded owner of the land in dispute.
She alienated the same to Mukand Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Kartar Singh-
respondent Nos.5 & 6 (vendees), for a total consideration of ` 15,20,000/-, by
virtue of registered sale deed dated 1.12.2008. After purchasing the land, the
vendees reported their acquisition of right to the revenue authorities. Since
petitioner Jagsir Singh had raised certain objections, so, the Assistant Collector 2nd
Grade (for brevity “the A.C.2nd Grade”) referred the matter (disputed mutation)
and the A.C.1st Grade (respondent No.3) sanctioned the mutation in favour of
respondent Nos.5 and 6, on the basis of registered sale deed, by way of impugned
order dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P1).
2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the
appeal, which was also dismissed by the District Collector (respondent No.2), by
means of impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P2).
3. Sequelly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
impugned orders (Annexues P1 & P2) was dismissed as well, by the Divisional
C.W.P.No.21918 of 2011 -2-
Commissioner, Patiala Division (respondent No.1), vide impugned order dated
23.8.2011 (Annexure P3).
4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant
writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3), invoking the
provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, having gone through
the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire
matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has
filed civil suit (Annexure P4) against respondent Nos.4 to 6, so, the AC 1st Grade,
District Collector and Commissioner committed a legal mistake in sanctioning the
mutation on the basis of indicated registered sale deed, lacks merit.
7. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that Bhagwan Kaur
(respondent No.4) was the recorded owner and she sold the land in litigation to
respondent Nos.5 and 6 for a valuable consideration of ` 15,20,000/-, by means of
registered sale deed dated 1.12.2008. Having purchased the land, the vendees
reported the matter of their acquisition of land in dispute to revenue authorities, as
contemplated under section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter
to be referred as “the Act”). In the wake of objections raised by the petitioner, the
AC 2nd Grade referred the case (contested mutation) to the AC 1st Grade, as
envisaged under section 35 of the Act.
8. Taking into consideration the factum of registered sale deed for
valuable consideration, the AC 1st Grade has rightly sanctioned the mutation, by
virtue of impugned order (Annexure P1). This order was upheld by the District
Collector, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2).
9. Not only that, the orders (Annexures P1 & P2) were further
confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, by way of impugned order (Annexure
P3), which, in substance, is (para 4) as under:-
C.W.P.No.21918 of 2011 -3-
“4. I have heard both the counsels and have also gone through the
record of the lower courts. In this case the mutation in question has been
entered and sanctioned on the basis of registered sale deed dated
01.12.2008 executed by one Bhagwan Kaur in favour of present
respondents. The petitioner is emphasizing on the point that the sale deed in
question is a forged document as the executant of the sale deed had no right
to execute the sale deed in question because she was not absolute owner of
the property in question and the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. I
am not in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner as the perusal of
record shows that the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of sale
deed dated 01.12.2008 which is a registered document and a revenue officer
is duty bound to implement the registered documents in revenue record if he
is satisfied about its genuineness. The mutation proceedings are summary in
nature and it has to be sanctioned in favour of a person for updation of
revenue record which is legal necessarily. The assertion of the petitioner
that Bhagwan Kaur was not competent to execute the sale deed in question
as she was not absolute owner of the suit land, is an intricate question of
law which can only be decided by the competent civil Court and not by the
revenue officer. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity
in the orders passed by lower revenue authorities. Thus the revision filed
has no merits and the same is hereby rejected.”
10. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner did not deny
the execution and consideration amount of sale deed in question, but he claimed
that vendor Bhagwan Kaur was not competent to alienate the land in dispute. Such
intricate questions can only be decided by the civil Court and not otherwise by the
revenue officers.
11. At the same time, the learned counsel for petitioner did not point out
any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in
what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) are illegal and would
invite any interference in this relevant connection.
12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent
grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned orders. Such orders, containing
valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising
C.W.P.No.21918 of 2011 -4-
the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent
illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for
petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the
obtaining circumstances of the case.
13. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed
by the counsel for petitioner.
14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further
anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of
final adjudication of civil litigation between the parties, as there is no merit,
therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.
15. Be that as it may, however, it is made clear that nothing observed
here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the subsequent civil proceedings, as
the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present writ
petition in mutation matter only.
16. Needless to mention here that sanction of mutation would naturally
be subject to the ultimate decision of the civil court.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
25.11.2011 Judge
AS
Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No