CWP No. 16530 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16530 of 1999 Date of decision: 4.3.2008 Gurdarshan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. H.S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. NS Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. K.S.GAREWAL, J. Gurdarshan Singh filed this petition on November 19, 1999 pleading that 44 bighas 6 biswas land in Selbrah, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, had been mortgaged with his father in 1923. Since the land had never been redeemed by the mortgagers, the petitioner filed a suit before the Sub Judge Ist Class, Phul in 1987 which was decreed on December 10, 1990. However, when he made an application for sanction of mutation in his favour, an objection was raised by Mitta Singh and Karnail Singh, therefore, the mutation 7124 was rejected on December 18, 1991 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Phul. CWP No. 16530 of 1999 2 The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who allowed the appeal on October 29, 1992 and sanctioned mutation in his favour. However, Mitta Singh and Karnail Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faridkot, who accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector while upholding the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The matter came up before the Financial Commissioner on a petition filed by the present petitioner. The Financial Commissioner held that the claim of the petitioner as well as Mitta Singh and Karnail Singh appeared to be highly suspicious and there was a possibility of property being escheat. After discussing the background of the case and the various orders of the revenue courts as well as the decree of the civil court, the Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order setting aside the mutation deserved to be upheld and went further to direct the Collector to inquire into the pedigree table of the mortgagers as well as the contesting parties, refer to the previous revenue record to see if any tampering had occurred over the course of time. We do not find any legal or jurisdictional error in the directions of the Financial Commissioner, who has considered the case in the right perspective. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 4.3.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE