CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15303 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 06 ,2011 Jasbir Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to impugn the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, and so also the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector etc. The petitioners have a grievance against an entry made in the revenue record pertaining to Khasra No.634. In the year 1992, Hardeep Singh had sold plot measuring 10 marlas from Khasra CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15303 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: No.634 to Harjinder Singh (petitioner No.2) and Amrik Singh, both sons of Darshan Singh. Possession was given to the petitioners and their co-purchasers. They claim to have constructed houses. In the year 1995, two plots of 10 marlas from Khasra No.636 were sold by Smt.Manjit Kaur through her husband and attorney Ajit Singh to petitioner No.1, Jasbir Singh. 10 marla plot was also sold from Khasra No.634 by Ramandeep Singh through his attorney and father, Ajit Singh to Jasbir Singh (petitioner No.1). Ramandeep Singh executed supplementary statement on 20.5.2005 in the original sale deed for correcting Khasra No.634 instead of 636 in the original sale deed. The petitioner would claim that wrong entry was made in the revenue records by the official, which was against the factual position in the revenue record. The petitioner accordingly moved two applications for correction of the entry in the revenue records pertaining to Khasra No.634. Tehsildar was detailed to conduct an enquiry, who found that Khasra No.634 was in the ownership of petitioner No.1 and due to inadvertent negligence, whole area of Khasra No.634 was mentioned instead of 636. Reference is also made to some FIR, which was registered on the statement of petitioner No.1. As per the petitioner, respondent No.3 and Navpreet Singh connived with the officials and tempered with the report of Tehsildar. The petitioners initially challenged the mutation before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Khandoor Sahib, who decided against them. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector for cancelling the mutation on the basis of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15303 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: sale deed allegedly executed by Karnail Singh. However, the petitioners have remained unsuccessful before the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner. The petitioners accordingly have filed the present writ petition to challenge said orders. The reply filed by the respondents would also show that the sale deed dated 13.2.1995 in favour of Jasbir Singh, petitioner, on the basis of which the claim of right is made, was set-aside by Civil Judge (Senior Division), on 2.9.2004. Petitioner, Jasbir Singh, has filed an application for being impleaded as a party, but the same was dismissed by the Court, which he did not impugn in any manner. The judgement dated 2.9.2004 has, thus, acquired finality as the appeal filed was also dismissed by District Judge, Amritsar, on 7.11.2005. Finding is that the sale deed dated 13.2.1995 in favour of Jasbir Singh, petitioner, was to be ignored. It has been found that the petitioners had not challenged the sale deed dated 12.8.2003 and have only contested the mutation. The mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of sale deed. Once the petitioners had not challenged the sale deed, they can not succeed in getting the mutation changed. This view taken by all the authorities is just and fair and would not call for any interference. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 06, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE