IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13022 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 09, 2011 Gurbir Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.13022 and 12966 of 2011 (Gurbir Singh & another Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab & others). The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 16.11.2010. On 2.1.1999, the land was mutated in the name of Beero @ Bachno. She executed a valid registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners of land measuring 11 kanals 3 marlas bearing Khasra No.35- R/25/1/2 (4-4) and 35/20 (7-0). The said sale deed was produced before the Patwari and mutation No.2800 was entered. The same was then placed before Assistant Collector Grade-I for sanction and approval. He, however, rejected the mutation on 6.12.2000. The petitioners challenged this order by filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. Respondent No.8 also challenged the Civil Writ Petition No.13022 of 2011 : 2 : mutation entered in favour of respondent No.3 in separate appeal before the Collector. These two appeals were clubbed and were dismissed by a common order on 11.12.2001. The petitioners thereafter challenged this order before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in two separate revision petitions, who also dismissed the petitions on 29.8.2006. The said orders were thereafter challenged before the Financial Commissioner, who has again dismissed the RORs on 16.11.2010, which is now impugned through the present writ petitions. The reason, which has weighed with the Financial Commissioner and the other authorities to reject the mutation which was entered in the name of the petitioners by Patwari, is on the ground that the sale deed relied upon by them is under challenge. Even the allegations of impersonation were made leading to registration of a criminal case against Beero @ Bachno. No doubt, the petitioners have pointed out that the criminal proceedings initiated and FIR have been quashed to urge that the allegation of impersonation is not made out, but the fact remains that sale deed is under adjudication in a civil suit pending before civil court of competent jurisdiction. Once the sale deed, relied upon to seek mutation in favour of the petitioners, is put to challenge, it would be fair for the parties to await the outcome of the civil suit. The decision in this civil suit ultimately has to regulate the rights of the parties and mutation on that basis. It would not be fair to effect change in mutation on the basis of contested sale deed. The view taken by the authorities in declining the prayer for mutation on the basis of a sale deed, which is under challenge, thus, cannot be faulted. I, therefore, do not see any reason which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. For the same reasons as relied upon, the mutation sanctioned in favour of Harbans Kaur should also await the outcome of the civil suit. Any third party rights, if created, would obviously be subject to the final outcome of the litigation that is pending. Dismissed. August 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE