IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1380 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 10, 2011 DHARAM SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. IS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate, for respondent No.5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-6). 2 The sequence of facts are that Dharam Singh son of Arjun Singh (petitioner) filed a suit against Sardul Singh son of Arjun Singh (respondent No.5) to seek declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanals out of Khasra No.2432 Min (2-0) towards Railway line out of tiba measuring 19 karams, Civil Writ Petition No.1380 of 2009 2 situated at Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot, and is entitled to get mutation of “Tabdil Malkiat” (transfer of ownership) sanctioned in the revenue record. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1988 . The decree sheet has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Respondent No.5 challenged the collusive decree. The suit of respondent No.5 was dismissed in default vide order dated 13.5.2005 (Annexure P-3). 3 The mutation, in the context of civil court decree (Annexure P-1), was sanctioned on 23.2.2004 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Respondent No.5 filed an appeal in the court of Collector, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2005 (Annexure P-4). It has been held that mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on the basis of civil court decree. The judgment of civil court had not been challenged in appeal. The appeal filed against sanction of mutation is time barred. 4 Respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot. The revision petition has been accepted vide order dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P-5) and the case has been remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with directions to get the collusive decree registered before going ahead with considering the issue of mutation. Civil Writ Petition No.1380 of 2009 3 5 The petitioner went up in revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-6). Essentially, the ground raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was that a person who is a party to the suit cannot agitate the matter that consent decree is required to be registered. The argument, however, has not been accepted by the Financial Commissioner and the order (Annexure P-5), passed by the Commissioner, has been upheld. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court rendered in Parveen Kumar v. Shiv Ram alias Sheo Ram, 2000(2) P.L.R. 312, to contend that a person who is party to the suit could not have objected to subsequent proceedings in regard to the consent decree on the ground of non registration. 7 Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has not been able to cite any judgment to the contrary. 8 In Parveen Kumar's case (supra), the following has been held in para-8 (relevant portion) :- “8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that Jhutha Ram could not challenge the consent decree dated 1.5.1982 on the ground of non- registration being a party to that decree itself. He could challenge that decree only on the Civil Writ Petition No.1380 of 2009 4 ground of fraud or collusion or on the ground that the Civil Court had no inherent jurisdiction to pass the decree. In this regard I can take support from Section 44 of the Evidence Act. ........” 9 In the present case, the limited issue is whether the mutation is required to be sanctioned in terms of consent decree or not. The mutation has not been sanctioned by the revenue authorities on the ground that it is not registered. The said objection of non-registration of the document has been raised by none other but a person, who was party to the consent decree. The consent decree was challenged, however, the suit filed by respondent No.5 was dismissed. In such circumstances, civil court decree (Annexure P-1) still holds good. 10 In view of what has been stated in Parveen Kumar's case (supra), this petition is allowed. Orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) are hereby quashed on the ground that a person who is party to the suit which was decreed, cannot challenge the same on the ground of non- registration, being a party to the decree itself. March 10, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?