IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15081 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 12, 2011 AMARINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. GS Nagra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Mutation was sanctioned on the basis of an alleged exchange deed between respondent No.3-Nishan Singh and petitioner Amarinder Singh in the year 1995. In February, 2008, an appeal was filed by respondent No.3 by stating that sanction of mutation is a result of fraud and impersonation. Respondent No.3 was a Non-Resident Indian and was not in the country at the point in time when the proceedings are stated to have taken place. 2 Vide order dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure P-3), Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Muktsar, allowed the appeal while setting aside order dated 21.11.1995, passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Muktsar, sanctioning mutation on the basis Civil Writ Petition No.15081 of 2010 2 of exchange. 3 The petitioner carried an appeal before Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which has been allowed vide order dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure P-4), on the ground that the appeal was hopelessly time barred. It has also been said that on the basis of mutation, entries in the Jamabandi have also been made. It has further been said that the remedy available with respondent No.3 is to approach the Civil Court for quashing the order whereby mutation was sanctioned. 4. Respondent No.3 approached Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, in revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act'), which has been allowed vide order dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure P-5). Following is the relevant portion of the order:- “4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments propounded by both the counsel. Though the appeal before the Collector was filed after the delay of 12 years, arguments of the petitioner is that he is a NRI and never signed the alleged agreement dated 6.11.95 and this agreement is forged and fabricated. Above all, respondent Amrinder Singh with whom agreement of exchange was signed, was minor in the year 1995 and was not possessing any property. It is settled law that a fraud can be detected and set at right any time. Hence the condition regarding bar of limitation and entry in the Jamabandi is not so important. Moreover appellant Nishan Singh filed an application for the condonation of delay also which is available at page 19 of the file of Collector. I am therefore the view that the Civil Writ Petition No.15081 of 2010 3 Commissioner erred in his judgment while accepting the revision of the respondent. However, the point needs to be seen and verified is whether the alleged agreement dated 6.11.95 bears the signature of Nishan Singh or someone else, whether he was in India at that time or not, whether Amrinder Singh was minor in the year 1995 and not possessing any property in the year 1995, whether the plot stated to be given to petitioner Nishan Singh, as mentioned in the agreement,w as in existence at that time and what is the outcome of the FIR regarding this alleged fraud. All these things needs in-depth inquiry before arriving at any final decision regarding sanctioning or rejecting this mutation. I, therefore consider it fit case for remand to Collector to see all these things and decide the case afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and I order accordingly.” 5 Vide impugned order (Annexure P-5), the case has been remanded to the Collector to re-adjudicate the issue in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Whether respondent No.3 was in the country or not can be deciphered on the bare perusal of passport and other related documents. Further, whether the petitioner was a minor in the year 1995, is also a fact which can be deciphered on the basis of documents. 6 In the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court does not find the impugned order, portion whereof has been extracted above, to be not legally tenable. In case, fraud has been committed, the same cannot be perpetuated or advanced by the authorities under the Act, if the issue can be decided on the basis of available documents. It is not in dispute that an FIR Civil Writ Petition No.15081 of 2010 4 has been lodged against the petitioner in regard to the alleged act. 6 In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed as no ground is made out to judicially review the impugned order (Annexure P-5). May 12, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?