CWP No.14663 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14663 of 2008 Date of decision:12.07.2010 Mohinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Sumeet Kumar Mahajan, Advocate with Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.5 and 6. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.07.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the orders dated 30.03.1999, 14.07.1997 and 09.04.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, the District Collector, Patiala and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Samana District Patiala, respectively, have been reversed. The dispute in the present case arises from orders passed during mutation proceeding. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the Collector and the Commissioner, rejected the prayer of respondents no.5 and 6, to record a mutation in their favour on the basis of a judgment and decree dated 16.10.1993. The Financial Commissioner reversed these orders by holding that a Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to record a mutation contrary to the declaration of title recorded in a judgment and decree passed by a civil CWP No.14663 of 2008 -2- court and therefore, directed the sanction of the mutation in accordance with the decree. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners were not parties to the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1993, the Financial Commissioner, has committed an error in holding that a mutation should be sanctioned in accordance with this judgment and decree. It is further submitted that as during pendency of writ petition, the petitioners have filed a civil suit the order passed by the Financial Commissioner should be kept in abeyance to await the decision of the civil suit or should be set aside. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that a Revenue Officer cannot travel beyond or ignore a civil court decree, whatsoever be its nature. A Revenue Officer is bound, in view of the summary nature of his jurisdiction, to give effect to a civil court decree so long as it is not set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, and have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law as would require interference. A Revenue Officer, exercises summary jurisdiction and therefore, cannot discard a judgment and decree passed by a civil court, till such time, as it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. A Revenue Officer when presented with a prayer for sanction of a mutation on the basis of a civil court decree, cannot but order attestation and sanction of a mutation. It would also be necessary to emphasise that a mutation neither confers nor divests a party of its proprietary or possessory rights as it is a mere fiscal entry recorded for the purpose of updating revenue entries. A mutation is subject to rectification CWP No.14663 of 2008 -3- and alteration, in accordance with any subsequent judgment and decree that may be passed by a civil court. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed but with liberty to the petitioners to pray for rectification of the mutation as and when the matter is decided by the civil court. It is made clear that neither party shall alienate the land in dispute during the pendency of the civil suit and while recording the mutation, the Tehsildar Samana, shall append a note in the remarks column of the latest jamabandi that a civil suit is pending with respect to land before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Samana, Patiala. Any observations as to the rights of the parties made hereinbefore, shall be disregarded by the civil court while deciding the civil suit. 12.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE