IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15877 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 27, 2011 SURINDER KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FIANANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. GS Sidhu, Advocate, for respondents 6 & 7. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Challenge in this petition is to order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by Assistant Collector Grade II, Payal, order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure P-2), passed by Collector, Ludhiana, order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), passedby Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby it has been held that because civil suit is pending adjudication, mutation cannot be sanctioned in accordance with the registered sale deed executed by Gurdev Singh son of Puran Singh, in favour of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.15877 of 2009 2 2 The issue raised in the petition has been crystalised in notice of motion order dated 21.10.2009. Relevant portion of order dated 21.10.2009 reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner purchased the land in question in pursuance of sale deed dated 22.5.2006 registered on 5.6.2006 from Gurdev Singh (respondent No.8). It is submitted that said Gurdev Singh had succeeded to the land in question after the death of his father in 1964 in pursuance of Will dated 14.3.1962. Mutation of land was sanctioned in favour of Gurdev Singh on 22.1.1996 and thereafter he was in cultivating possession of the land. It is submitted that Mohan Singh (respondent No.5) another son of Gurdev Singh filed a civil suit on 18.11.2004 on the basis of oral family settlement. Along with the suit Mohan Singh (respondent No.5) also filed an application for grant of ad interim stay which was dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2006 (Annexure-P.5). Mohan Singh (respondent No.5) filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 29.7.2006 (Annexure-P.6). The prayer of the plaintiff Mohan Singh (respondent No.5) for restraining his brother Gurdev Singh (respondent No.8) from alienating the land was also declined. Therefore, it is submitted that mutation of the land on the basis of the sale in favour of the petitioner is liable to be sanctioned in her favour.” 3 Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Payal, vide order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P-1), has held that Gurdev Singh son of Puran Singh executed sale deed dated 5.6.2006 in favour of petitioner-Surinder Kaur. Mohan Singh raised objections saying Civil Writ Petition No.15877 of 2009 3 that mutation cannot be sanctioned during the pendency of litigation before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, regarding the land in dispute. The said position has been accepted and it has been said that till decision of the civil court, proceedings of mutation are closed. 4 Collector, Ludhiana, vide order dated 30.5.2007 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the appeal on the ground that civil suit is pending between the parties. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), allowed the revision filed by the petitioner and the case was remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Payal, with directions to sanction the mutation by adopting proper procedure, as per law. 5 The petitioner as well as Mohan Singh and others, being not satisfied with order (Annexure P-3), filed separate revision petitions under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Vide order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), the Financial Commissioner accepted the revision filed by Mohan Singh and others, while setting aside order (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, and upholding order (Annexure P- 2), passed by the Collector, and order (Annexure P-1), passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Payal. Revision petition filed by petitioner-Surinder Kaur has been dismissed. 6 The facts of sale deed having been executed by Gurdev Singh (respondent No.8) in favour of the petitioner and its registration, are not disputed. Gurdev Singh got the land Civil Writ Petition No.15877 of 2009 4 from his father on the basis of a Will dated 14.3.1962. Mutation of land was sanctioned in favour of Gurdev Singh on 22.1.1966 and, thereafter, he continued in possession. Mohan Singh (respondent No.5), another son of Gurdev Singh, filed a civil suit on 18.11.2004, on the basis of oral family settlement. Interim relief has been denied to Mohan Singh by the civil court. 7 The fact to be considered by this court is whether, in summary proceedings, the revenue authorities can sanction mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed, or not, while civil suit is pending adjudication and while no interim direction has been issued therein, for implementation by the revenue authorities ? 8 It cannot be disputed, in law, that proceedings in relation to sanction of mutation are summary in nature. The revenue authorities are required to give regard to a registered document and sanction mutation accordingly. Entry in mutation does not confer any right or title on a person in whose favour it is sanctioned. Sanction of mutation cannot be kept in abeyance because revenue record must reflect the position, as it exists on the basis of a document in regard to transfer of property. Pendency of a civil suit is no bar for the revenue authorities to make entries in accordance with a registered document, if there is no other hindrance in law. 9 In view of above, orders (Annexures P-1 to P-4), passed by the revenue authorities are quashed. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Payal, is directed to make entries in the revenue record in accordance with the registered sale deed. It Civil Writ Petition No.15877 of 2009 5 is, however, made clear that after final adjudication by the civil court, the revenue entries would be modified/changed accordingly by the revenue authorities. April 27, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?