IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1505 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 23.02.2011 Gurmail Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus Supreme Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Appellants Gurmail Singh, Gurtek Singh, Gurpash Singh and Gurdas Singh sons of Hari Singh have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 8.3.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 9692 of 2008), filed by respondent No.1 Supreme Singh for setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities, rejecting his prayer for sanctioning mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed, has been allowed. Undisputedly, vide sale deed 11.3.2005, respondent No.1 had purchased certain piece of land from the joint land of a co-owner. However, the revenue authorities refused to sanction the mutation of the said sale deed on the ground that possession was not delivered to the vendee. The revenue authorities passed the said order, while keeping in view Chapter 7.17 of the LPA No. 1505 of 2010 -2- Punjab Land Record Manual, which prohibits the sanction of mutation if the sale deed is not accompanied by delivery of possession. The learned Single Judge, while relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 1993 (3) Recent Revenue Reports 174, set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malout, to record a mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants made two fold submissions. Firstly, he argued that the appellants, who are in cultivating possession of the disputed land for the last more than 20 years, had filed a civil suit on 19.4.2005, challenging the sale deed dated 11.3.2005, and claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the same, on the basis of a Will. Thus, at the time of passing of the orders by the other revenue authorities, rejecting the sanctioning of mutation in favour of respondent No.1, the civil suit filed by the appellants was pending adjudication, wherein the civil court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the revenue authorities rightly rejected the sanctioning of mutation in favour of respondent No.1. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the mutation can be sanctioned with regard to the share in the disputed land and not with regard to the specific khasra number, purchased by the vendee. So far as the first contention, we are of the opinion that sanctioning of mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed cannot be LPA No. 1505 of 2010 -3- declined merely because of the pendency of a civil suit challenging the right of the vendor to execute the sale deed. If subsequently, such a suit is decided against the vendee, the plaintiff in that suit can move appropriate application for change of mutation on the basis of the decree. Therefore, in this case, sanctioning of mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 11.3.2005 cannot be said to be illegal. The second contention is also without any substance. In the present case, no such question is arising. A direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the revenue authorities to sanction mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 11.3.2005. Even otherwise, mutation does not confer any right and if the vendor of respondent No.1 has sold the land in excess of her share, such sale is not binding on other co-sharers, and they can always get the land partitioned and get their share separated in the joint land. The mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed, which may be with regard to specific khasra numbers, but that sale shall always be deemed to be considered as sale of share. In this regard, reference can be made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 23, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE