IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 72 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 19.01.2011 Bali Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Jagtar Singh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Bali Singh has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 12.10.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 15148 of 2009), filed by respondent No.1 Jagtar 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. Though this appeal is barred by time and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 208 of 2011), duly supported by his affidavit, for condoning the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits. LPA No. 72 of 2011 -2- Undisputedly, vide sale deed 29.11.2000, respondent No.1 had purchased certain piece of land from the joint land of a co-owner, wherein the appellant is also one of the co-owners. Though in the sale deed, it was mentioned that vendor of respondent No.1 had transferred possession of specific khasra number, which was in his possession, in favour of respondent No.1, but 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 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 and the decision of this Court in Supreme Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, 2010 (5) RCR (Civil) 833, set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran, to record a mutation in favour of respondent No.1, on the basis of the sale deed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant 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. This contention is without any substance. In the present case, no such question is arising. A direction has been issued by the LPA No. 72 of 2011 -3- learned Single Judge to the revenue authorities to sanction mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 29.11.2000. Even otherwise, mutation does not confer any right and if the vendor of respondent No.1 has sold the land in excess of his share, such sale is not binding on the appellant and 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 January 19, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE