IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.2993 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 12.08.2009 Jai Parkash & another ...Appellants versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant for permanent injunction that he is the owner of 152 sq. yards of land bearing Khasra No.3612/1220/1 which he has purchased from Smt. Sukhwanti. Learned counsel has proposed the following questions: i) Whether a duly proved sale deed and mutation thereon may be discarded merely on the statement of respondents? ii)Whether without any evidence a document which is part of revenue record can be discarded merely on the ground of suspicion? iii)Whether a mutation can be reviewed without issuing notice to the effected party? As a matter of fact question No.(iii) is a double edged sword because if this question is answered in favour of the appellant it would immediately turn on its head and stab the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the mutation in his favour cannot be reviewed without issuing notice to him. The RSA No.2993 of 2009 -2- case against him is that the mutation in favour of his predecessor-in-interest was reviewed without giving notice to the provincial government who was recorded as owner prior thereto. Learned counsel has primarily argued that no document had been filed by the provincial government that it was the owner of the land in dispute while he had proved the Will (by which his predecessor-in-interest inherited the land), the sale deed (by which the property was purchased by the appellant) and the Tatima (by which the ownership was transferred in the revenue record from the name of the provincial government to that of Smt. Sukhwanti). However, I find that in the plaint it was averred that originally Khasra no.3612/1220/1 was owned by Laxmi Narain; some part of it acquired by the Government and with regard to the remaining part, apart from the appellant sale deeds had been entered into with various other persons. Both the Courts below have found that no evidence was led by the appellant in respect of these averments. No evidence was led to show that Laxmi Narain was ever owner of Khasra No.3612/1220/1 or that only a portion thereof was acquired or even that the original mutation had wrongly been entered in favour of the provincial government. In the absence thereof it cannot be held that the documents placed by the appellant on record proved that the property was owned by his vendor. Consequently holding the proposed questions against the appeal, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. August 12, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE