LPA No.678 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.678 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 06, 2011 Shinder Kaur .....APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.20535 of 2008) filed by respondent No.5 challenging the sanction of mutation of the land in question in favour of the appellant and the orders passed by the revenue authorities, has been allowed. Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal the appellant has filed an application (CM No.1777 of 2011) for condonation of 116 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, the dispute is about sanction of mutation of the land, which was belonging to one Sher Singh. The said Sher Singh suffered a consent decree dated 26.8.1995 in favour of his son Baljit Singh LPA No.678 of 2011 (O&M) -2- (respondent No.5 herein). Subsequently, Sher Singh himself challenged the said consent decree by filing a civil suit. After his death, his legal representative Shinder Kaur (appellant herein) pursued the said suit. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Sunam on 14.5.2009. But during the pendency of the civil suit, the revenue authorities, while ignoring the consent decree dated 26.8.1995, which was still holding the value, sanctioned the mutation in favour of the legal representative of Sher Singh on the basis of the alleged will dated 23.4.2001 executed by Sher Singh in favour of his daughter Shinder Kaur (appellant herein). It is further undisputed position that the legal representatives of Sher Singh had challenged the judgment and decree of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Sunam by filing an appeal, which is still pending. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, has set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities, while making the following observations:- “I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. A determination of rights by a civil court, has primacy and is, therefore, binding upon a revenue officer. The petitioner draws his title from a decree dated 26.08.1995. The validity of the decree has been upheld with the dismissal of the suit filed by Sher Singh. In the appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit, the first appellate court has not stayed operation of the judgment and decree passed against the private respondents. The revenue officers have ignored the civil court decree and recorded a mutation on the basis of registered Will propounded by the private respondents. The revenue officers had no jurisdiction to disregard the judgment and decree dated LPA No.678 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 26.08.1995, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior division, Sunam and record a mutation on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Sher Singh. The pendency of an appeal against the judgment recorded by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, is irrelevant, at this stage, as operation of the judgment and decree passed by the civil court has not been stayed.” During the course of arguments, learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the aforesaid order. He has only argued that the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sunam is still pending. In our view, till date, the consent decree suffered by Sher Singh in favour of one of his son's stand valid and if the said decree is set aside, then it will be open for the appellant to get the mutation sanctioned in her favour on the basis of the said decree. But till the Civil Court decree dated 14.5.2009 stand valid and not set aside, the revenue authorities were rightly held to be not justified to sanction the mutation in favour of the legal representative of Sher Singh on the basis of the alleged will dated 23.4.2001 executed by Sher Singh. It is well settled that mutation entries are only one of the modes of proof of the enjoyment of the property and the same do not create any title or interest therein (See Sankalchan Jayachandbhai Patel v . Vithalbai Jayachandbhai Patel, 1996 (6) SCC 433). Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 06, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE LPA No.678 of 2011 (O&M) -4-