CWP No.3238 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.3238 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.1.2010 Veerbhan .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner to Govt. of Haryan Deptt. of Revenue, Haryana Civil Sectt.Chandigarh ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. D.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to orders dated 30.3.3007, 23.9.2004, 25.11.2003 and 14.5.2003, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue,Haryana, the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, the Collector, Distt.Rewari and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kosli, refusing to attest and sanction a mutation on the basis of a consent decree dated 31.10.1990. The petitioner, contesting respondent no.5 and proforma respondents no.7 to 9 obtained a consent decree dated 31.10.1990 allegedly based upon a family settlement. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on 14.10.2002 before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bawal, for sanction of a mutation on the basis of the consent decree. The matter was referred to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kosli, CWP No.3238 of 2008 2 Distt.Rewari, for consideration. Vide order dated 14.5.2003, the mutation was rejected on the ground of delay and for want of registration of decree. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Rewari, which was dismissed on 25.11.2003. The revisions filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that revenue authorities have no power to refuse attestation and sanction of a mutation, on the ground of delay. Furthermore a consent decree like any other decree, is enforceable in law, till it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. The revenue authorities were, therefore, bound to attest and sanction a mutation on the basis of the consent decree. Counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 states that the alleged consent decree is vitiated by fraud. As respondents no.5 and 6 have filed a civil suit praying that the judgement and decree dated 31.10.1990 be set aside, the revenue authorities rightly dismissed the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, respondents no.5 and 6 have filed a suit challenging the consent decree dated 31.10.1990. The legality of the consent decree would be subject to the outcome of the civil suit. The refusal of the revenue authorities to enter a mutation, on the basis of this consent decree, therefore, cannot be faulted. It is, however,clarified that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decline a mutation on the ground of delay or that it is based upon a consent decree. A decree till it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction is legal and valid and binds the parties. It would also be necessary to mention here that a mutation neither confers nor CWP No.3238 of 2008 3 divests a party of title and is entered so as to update statistical records maintained by the revenue authorities. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pray for sanction of a mutation, after the decision of the civil suit. 22.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE