IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11016 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2011 Sukhwinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. G.S. Sirphikhi, Advocate for respondents No. 5 and 6. RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 12296 of 2011 Document taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 11016 of 2009 Halqa Patwari had entered mutation No. 2228 in favour of the petitioner on the basis of registered sale deed No. 2150 dated 29.07.1985. Then it was presented before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Sh. Paramjit Singh submitted an application that civil suit regarding the land in question is pending before the Civil Judge Ajnala and status quo order has been passed. The matter was, accordingly, heard by the Collector and it was submitted that the mutation was entered after more than 20 years of the sale deed. Validity of which is under challenge before the civil Court. Finding that vendee had made no effort to get the mutation entered on the Civil Writ Petition No. 11016 of 2009 (O&M) -2- basis of sale deed, the Collector agreed with the contentions raised by the counsel for the respondents. The Collector, accordingly, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of lower authorities leaving the parties to seek their remedy before the civil court regarding validity of the sale deed. The Commissioner also upheld the order passed by the Collector by observing that the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of sale deed after expiry of more than 19 yeas. The Commissioner, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. His order was also further upheld by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Judge where the prayer of the respondents for injunction has been declined. Counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submits that now there is no civil proceedings pending except that the respondents have appealed against this order. As per the counsel, since no challenge is pending to the sale deed, her case cannot be ignored for entering the mutation on the basis of his sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents, however, says that not only he has filed an appeal, the respondents had inherited this land and it has rightly been mutated on the basis of inheritance. Merely because the sale deed was not brought to the notice of the revenue authorities for sometime would not be a reason enough to ignore the same, especially when, the same has not been challenged. The submission made by the counsel for the respondents that he had pleaded absence of sale deed in favour of the petitioner, would not be a ground to ignore the sale deed when Civil Writ Petition No. 11016 of 2009 (O&M) -3- that was not the stand taken before the Commissioner. The Commissioner and the Collector had ignored the prayer of the petitioner for this mutation only on the ground that the sale deed was not noted with the revenue authorities, whereas the Collector had directed that the mutation should await the outcome of the civil suit. The Commissioner had simply ignored the same on the ground that the same was entered after much delay. That does not appear to be proper and legal approach. Since there is no challenge to the sale deed, the authorities would have to take this into consideration and then take a decision whether the mutation is required to be entered in favour of the petitioner or not. The impugned order passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are, therefore, set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 03.10.2011, who shall pass the appropriate order on the basis of situation as it exists today. September 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE