IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17424 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Raghubir and others ….Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Girohtra, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate, for Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 to 8, 12, 13, 14, 23 to 26 and 90. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing order dated 31.05.2007 (Annexure P/7) and order dated 05.02.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent Nos.1 and 4 respectively, arising out of the mutation proceedings. CWP No. 17424 of 2007 This Court in the matter of Shamsher Singh versus Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, C.W.P. No. 16338 of 2011, decided on 02.09.2011 has held that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and mutation does not confer or extinguish any title. This Court has further held that parties are at liberty to get their respective titles decided by way of regular suit for declaration / possession and suit shall be decided, at its own merit, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation / finding / decision in the mutation proceedings. This Court further held that any observation, finding or decision in the mutation proceedings shall not be res judicata in a regular suit for title. This Court has further held that writ petition ordinarily should not be entertained against the orders passed in the mutation proceedings and parties should be left to get their respective title decided by way of regular suit. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra), I am not inclined to exercise my writ jurisdiction. Present petition is dismissed. However, parties shall be at liberty to get their respective title decided from the Competent Court. In the event of filing of the civil suit, same shall be decided, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any 2 CWP No. 17424 of 2007 observation/finding/decision passed in the impugned orders. Any finding, observation or decision in the impugned orders shall not be taken as res judicata in the civil suit. Meanwhile, revenue officer shall make entry in the revenue record to the effect that title is disputed and shall carry out the mutation as per ultimate decision in the civil suit. September 22, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3