Civil Writ Petition No.20345 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20345 of 2011 Date of Decision:03.11.2011 Narinder Kumar Gupta and another ......Petitioners Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant civil writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Narinder Kumar Gupta, his wife Anu(petitioners), Chaman Lal Gupta and his wife Kiran Bala-proforma respondent Nos.8 and 9(for brevity “the Ist Party”) on one side and sequelly Bhushan Lal Gupta son of Harbans Lal and others-private respondent Nos.4 to 7 (for short “the IInd Party”) on the other side, were stated to have purchased the land in dispute, by means of their respective sale-deeds. 2. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioners(Ist Party) vide order dated 28.01.2008(Annexure P-5/A), whereas the mutation was sanctioned in favour of private respondents(IInd Party), by way of order dated 28.01.2008(Annexure P-5). 3. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P-5/A) of sanction of mutation, private respondent Nos.4 to 7(IInd Party) filed the appeal, which was accepted and the case was remanded back by the Collector(A.D.C.), by virtue of Civil Writ Petition No.20345 of 2011 2 impugned order dated 26.04.2010(Annexure P-6). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-6), the petitioners(Ist Party) filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, through the medium of impugned order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P-7). 5. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 7. What is not disputed here is that, private respondents(IInd Party) were in possession of the land, which they have purchased by way of sale-deed. The enquiry was initiated with regard to insufficient stamp duty on their sale-deed by the Collector. During the course of enquiry, the petitioners(Ist Party) also purchased the same Khasra Number from other co-sharers through the Power of Attorney, which was previously purchased by the private respondents(IInd Party). All these vital aspects were not considered and just ignored by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade with impunity. Therefore, to me, the Collector has rightly remitted the matter back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, for its fresh decision, in this relevant behalf. 8. Not only that, the order of the Collector was further correctly upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide impugned order dated 14.06.2011(Annexure P-7), the operative part of which is as under:- “I have heard both the counsels and have also gone through the record of lower courts. In this case, the Collector(ADC) Fatehgarh Sahib has clearly observed that some of the Khasra Numbers purchased by respondents are same as purchased by appellants. It has been further observed by the Collector(ADC) Fatehgarh Sahib that all these Khasra Numbers have been purchased by appellants and respondents through two separate sale-deeds. Civil Writ Petition No.20345 of 2011 3 It is also clear from the order of Collector that A.C.Ist Grade, Bassi Pathana failed to give any observations with regard to two separate sale- deeds for the same Khasra Numbers. It is also clear from the order of A.C.Ist Grade, Bassi Pathana, that the opportunity to cross-examine the witness has been denied, when as per law the respondents are liable to be given full opportunity to prove their case. In my opinion, the Collector has rightly remanded the case to A.C.Ist Grade for fresh decision and there is no illegality in the same. Furthermore, the Collector has merely remanded the case for fresh decision and has not passed any orders in favour of any person and as such no prejudice has been caused to the present appellants if the case is again decided by the A.C.Ist Grade as the appellants will also be afforded sufficient opportunity to prove their case. Thus, the appeal filed in this case has no merits and the same is hereby rejected.” 9. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect. 10. Meaning thereby, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. Such impugned orders(Annexures P-6 and P-7), containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.20345 of 2011 4