COCP No. 1588 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1588 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 Satwant Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Ravinder Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 16.11.2004, the Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by Ajit Singh, holding that the mutation has to be registered on the basis of registered sale deed dated 8.1.1996, even if the suit for declaration challenging the sale deed is pending before the Civil Court. It is pointed out that subsequently, further revision before the Financial Commissioner has also been dismissed on 3.8.2005, but the mutation has still not been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide communication dated 17.2.2010, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, has declined to sanction mutation in view of the order passed by the Civil Court staying sanction of the mutation. It is contended that there is no COCP No. 1588 of 2010 (O&M) [2] order of staying the sanction of mutation and, therefore, the order rejecting sanction of mutation is based upon incorrect facts and thus, the respondent has violated the order passed by the Commissioner as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. The sanction of mutation does not confer any right or title. It is primarily entered for determining the liability to pay the land revenue. The parties are already before the Civil Court, wherein the legality and validity of the sale is subject matter of challenge. The order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) declining to sanction the mutation, has been passed in exercise of quasi judicial jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner has a liberty to challenge such order by way of appeal or revision, as may be permissible, before the competent authority. But to allege that by declining sanction of the mutation, the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) has violated the order passed by the Commissioner and/or the Financial Commissioner, is not tenable. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 13.8.2010 ds