CWP No.13879 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13879 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 **** Mukhtiar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Financial Commissioner, Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RS Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure P14) passed by the Financial Commissioner whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.5, also on behalf of respondent No.6, has been accepted and while setting aside the order of Commissioner, Faridkot Division, the Mutation No.1370 of village Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot entered in the name of respondent No.5 & 6 has been restored. (2). There is indeed no dispute that Bikkar Singh – one of the brother of the petitioner sold a part of his share in favour of respondent No.5&6 vide registered sale deed No.802 dated 02.06.2005. Respondents No.5&6 sought sanction CWP No.13879 of 2011.doc - 2 – of mutation in their favour based upon the said sale deed but their prayer was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that Bikkar Singh or the vendee are not in physical possession of the said land. The petitioner asserted that the specific khasra number said to have been sold by Bikkar Singh was in his physical possession. The Financial Commissioner has held and rightly so that out of the joint holding comprising 71 kanal 11 marlas, Bikkar Singh has sold only 4 kanals and “the mutation was entered not in relation to any specific khasra number but to the extent of transfer of 80/1431 shares” in the joint holding. (3). It would thus be seen that the physical possession of the petitioner, though held to be for and on behalf of all the co-sharers, has not been disturbed nor mutation in relation to any specific khasra has been sanctioned by the Financial Commissioner. Suffice it to observe that the retention of exclusive possession of a particular khasra number would depend upon the partition of the joint holding for which the parties shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. (4). With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. (5). Dasti . CWP No.13879 of 2011.doc - 3 – 03.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge