Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.Nos.8552-53 of 2009 and C.M.Nos.8614-8615 of 2009 and Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 Date of Order: 18.01.2010 Mohinder Kaur & others ....Petitioners Versus The Financial Commissioner and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the non-applicant-petitioners Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respodnents no.1 to 3. Mr. P.S.Kang,Advocate for respondent No.4-Bhag Singh(L.R.) Mr. H.N.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent no.4-B-Parkash Kaur. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.Nos.8552-53 of 2009 and C.M.Nos.8614-8615 of 2009 Counsel for the applicant prays that he may be allowed to withdraw these applications with liberty to seek his remedy, in accordance with law. Allowed as prayed for. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforestated liberty. Civil Writ Petition No.14884 of 2005 This order shall dispose of CWP No.14884 of 2005 and CWP No.16457 of 2005. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from CWP No.14884 of 2005. The petitioners challenge orders dated 18.09.1995, 21.09.1998 and 30.10.2002, passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Kharar, District Mohali, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, setting aside an order dated Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 -2- 07.03.1994, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kharar. Before proceeding to examine the legality of these orders, it would be appropriate to briefly re-count the facts that have led to this unnecessary and unfortunate litigation spread over two decades. One Sadhu Singh was the owner of 86 kanals 3 marlas of land situated in Village Rani Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. On 30.01.1986, his wife Kuldeep Kaur, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining him from alienating this land. The suit was dismissed on 27.02.1989. During the pendency of the suit, Sadhu Singh, sold 33 kanals 10 marlas of land vide a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1986, to the petitioners, through his sister and general power of attorney holder Amarjit Kaur. After the dismissal of the suit, Sadhu Singh sold another 22 kanals and 12 marlas of land to the petitioners vide a registered sale deed dated 08.03.1989 again through his sister and general power of attorney holder Amarjit Kaur. The petitioners applied to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for sanction of a mutation of their ownership pursuant to these sale deeds. Mutation No.1215 was entered but before it could be sanctioned, Sadhu Singh expired on 27.05.1989. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kharar, vide order dated 04.06.1991 directed the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to sanction a mutation in favour of the natural heirs. On 22.02.1994, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kharar, sanctioned a mutation of inheritance bearing No.1224 in favour of Kuldeep Kaur and simultaneously attested and sanctioned the mutation no. 1310, in favour of the petitioners with respect to the land purchased by them. Kuldeep Kaur filed an appeal. Vide order dated 18.09.1995, the Collector set aside the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by holding that as Kuldeep Kaur appeared to be a simple-ton and the court was required to protect her interest. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed an appeal Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 -3- before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, which was dismissed on 21.09.1998. The revision filed before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) met the same fate on 30.10.2002. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are arbitrary and perverse and have been passed in total disregard to the petitioners' rights flowing from the registered sale deeds. It is argued that as neither Kuldeep Kaur nor the other respondents have ever challenged the correctness or legality of the sale deeds, revenue authorities, had no jurisdiction to set aside the mutation sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kharar. A perusal of the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, appears to suggest that Kuldeep Kaur was a simple-ton and, therefore, did not understand mutation proceedings. At no stage of the proceedings has any revenue officer recorded any finding based upon any medical evidence that Kuldeep Kaur was mentally challenged or that after the execution of the sale deeds by Sadhu Singh, she could claim any right in the land in dispute. It is further argued that as the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners, are legal and valid, revenue authorities cannot ignore them.The revenue authorities are bound in law to give effect to a document, duly registered in accordance with law. Counsel for the legal representatives of Kuldeep Kaur submits that as the Collector, directed the Assistant Collector to sanction a mutation with respect to inheritance, he had no jurisdiction to enter a mutation on the basis of the sale deeds and that to after a period of 8 years. It is further submitted that Kuldeep Kaur was a simple-ton and, therefore, did not understand the proceedings before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kharar and as a consequence was unable to defend her rights. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 -4- orders and am satisfied that the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have committed fundamental errors of law that would necessitate setting aside of their orders. At no stage of the proceedings, have any of the respondents, particularly Kuldeep Kaur asserted or proved that the sale deeds executed by Sadhu Singh are illegal. Admittedly, Sadhu Singh was owner in possession of the suit land. His right to sell his property was challenged by Kuldeep Kaur by way of a suit. The suit was dismissed. Sadhu Singh, therefore, had every right to sell the land in dispute to the petitioners and till such time as the sale deeds are not set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction, in the exercise of their statutory powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 to refuse attestation and sanction of a mutation. A sale deed registered under the provisions of Indian Registration Act, has to be honoured by revenue authorities and only in exceptional circumstances, may a revenue officer refuse to sanction a mutation based upon a registered document. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner appear to have been unduly impressed by observations recorded by the Collector that Kuldeep Kaur is a simpleton and, therefore, did not understand mutation proceedings. The respondents have failed to refer to or adduce any material to suggest that Kuldeep Kaur was mentally challenged. She filed a suit, without a next friend or guardian, against her husband and has sold the land to the applicants in C.M.No.8553 of 2009. At no stage in the suit filed by her to challenge Sadhu Singh's right to sell the land did she or anyone allege that she is mentally challenged. It would require notice that the suit filed by Kuldeep Kaur to restrain Sadhu Singh from alienating the suit land was dismissed on 27.02.1989 thereby affirming the right of Sadhu Singh to alienate the land or deal with it in any such manner as he deemed appropriate. The execution of the first sale deed during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 14884 of 2005 -5- the civil suit would not make any difference as a sale deed executed during the pendency of suit, binds a vendor and his vendee. As prior to his death, Sadhu Singh had sold the land in dispute to the petitioners by way of registered sale deeds dated 29.08.1996 and 08.03.1989, revenue authorities were statutorily obliged to sanction a mutation in favour of the vendees i.e. the petitioners. The mutation of inheritance, in favour of Kuldeep Kaur could only be sanctioned with respect to the balance land left behind by Sadhu Singh. The revenue officers, particularly the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition mechanically, without care or concern for the fact that this error has lead to a litigation spanning two decades. A mutation merely updates revenue statistics and is at best evidence of the fact it seeks to record. It would be necessary to emphasise that a mutation neither confers nor divests a party of his title In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 18.09.1995, 21.09.1998 and 30.10.2002, passed by the Collector,Sub Division Kharar, District Mohali, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, are set aside and the order dated 07.03.1994, passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kharar, is upheld. This order shall, however, not be construed to be expression of an opinion as to the legality of the sale deeds. January 18, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE