IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1106 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 21.02.2011 Mehar Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Mehar Singh has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 29.3.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 3763 of 2008) filed by him for setting aside the orders, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala; the Collector, Patiala; the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala; and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. In our opinion, in the present case, in order to delay the rightful claim of the other side, the appellant is un-necessarily filing the petitions/ appeals, one after the the other, challenging the well reasoned orders, passed by the revenue authorities. Undisputedly, the appellant is a judgment debtor, against whom civil suit filed by respondents No.6 to 8 and their mother LPA No. 1106 of 2010 -2- Kirpal Kaur, for declaring them as owners in possession to the extent of half share in the land in question, was decreed with a rider that they will be at liberty to get the disputed land partitioned. The mutation of the said decree was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and that order was confirmed upto the highest revenue court, i.e. the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab. Those orders were challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It has not been disputed before us that a decree was passed in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8 and their mother to the aforesaid effect, and that has become final. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of a decree, which was passed in the year 1971, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade could not have sanctioned the mutation. This contention is not acceptable at all. Once the right of ownership of respondents No.6 to 8 has been recognised and upheld by the Civil Court, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the civil court decree in the revenue record. Thus, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chandigarh. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 21, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE