IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10371 of 2011 Date of Decision: June 02, 2011 Samarbir Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are purchasers for consideration vide a registered sale deed. In such circumstances, sanction of mutation cannot be denied on the pretext of a 3rd person who claims himself to be in possession. 2. Notice of motion, to the official respondents only, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of official respondent (Nos.1 to 4). Requisite number of copies of the petition have been supplied to him. 4. Heard. CWP No.10371 of 2011 [2] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that although sale deed was executed in April 2011 and proceedings are pending before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Abohar, District Ferozepur, the same are being delayed on one pretext or the other. Petitioners having spent more than ` 3 crore, are being put at a disadvantage without there being any legal cause. 6. Learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to issue a direction to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, to deal with the issue and take a final decision in regard to sanction of mutation. 7. Learned counsel for the official respondents has not been able to dispute that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and ordinarily, are not to be delayed because land record cannot be kept in vacuum. 8. The petition is disposed of with direction to Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Abohar, District Ferozepur, to take final decision regard to sanction of mutation in context of sale deeds, Annexure P-1 and P-2, by 29.7.2011. 9. Copy of the order, under signatures of Special Secretary of the Bench, be given to learned counsel for the official respondents for onward transmission to the officer who is to comply with the order. (AJAI LAMBA) June 02, 2011 JUDGE avin CWP No.10371 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?