CWP No.9692 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.9692 of 2008 Date of Decision: 8.3.2010 Supreme Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. M.S. Lobana, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 12.5.2005, 24.1.2006, 28.6.2007 and 15.1.2008, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malout, the District Collector, Muktsar, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh. The petitioner approached the concerned revenue officer for attestation and sanction of a mutation, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 11.3.2005, executed by Gurdev Kaur for a consideration of Rs.8,03,000/-. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malout, rejected the petitioner's prayer by holding that as possession has not been transferred, para 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual bars the sanction of a CWP No.9692 of 2008 2 mutation in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal and revisions before the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively, which also met the same fate. Counsel for the petitioner submits that where land has been purchased by a registered sale deed from a co-sharer, whether possession has been delivered or not, a revenue officer is statutorily obliged to record a mutation of ownership reflecting the share holding purchased by a vendee. The prohibition contained in Chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, that mutation should not be entered, if possession is not delivered, does not apply in view of Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgement in Chanan Singh V. Financial Commissioner Appeals (1), 2005(2) PLR 103 for the proposition that in such a situation, a mutation cannot be refused. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that Gurdev Kaur's right to transfer the land to the petitioner is pending adjudication before a civil court since 19.4.2005. The civil court has directed parties to maintain status-quo with respect to possession. The revenue authorities, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer to record a mutation, in his favour. It is further submitted that para 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual clearly states that where possession is not delivered, revenue authorities shall desist from recording a mutation. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that revenue authorities have committed an error by refusing to record a mutation, Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, reads as follows :- CWP No.9692 of 2008 3 “34. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to land-owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants – (1) Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land-owner, assignee of land-revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. (2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the patwari. (3) The patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those sub-sections and has not been so made. (4) A Revenue Officer shall from time to time inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the forgoing sub-sections, report should have been made to the patwari and entry made in that register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of the right acquired. 5. Such an entry shall be made by the insertion in that record of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from CWP No.9692 of 2008 4 that record of any entry in any record previously prepared which by reason of the acquisition has ceased to be correct.” Section 34 places a statutory duty upon a revenue officer, when approached with a request to record a mutation on the basis of inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise, to enter such transaction in the register of mutations. Section 36 of the Act that enables a revenue officer to decide a dispute reads as follows :- “Determination of disputes :- (1) If during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under this Chapter a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations, a Revenue officer may of his own motion, or on the application of any party interested but subject to the provisions of the next following section and after such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter. (2) If in any such dispute the Revenue officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties thereto is in possession of any property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property and shall by order direct that that person be put in possession thereof and that an entry in accordance with that order be made in the record or register. CWP No.9692 of 2008 5 (3) A direction of a Revenue officer under sub-section (2) shall be subject to any decree or order which may be subsequently passed by any Court of competent jurisdiction.” Section 36 empowers a revenue officer to summarily determine any dispute that may arise during the recording of a mutation. Sub-Section (3) of Section 36 of the Act states that the order of a revenue officer under sub-section(2) determining the person best entitled to the property and the consequent entry in the revenue record shall be subject to any decree or order, which may be subsequently passed by any court of competent jurisdiction. A revenue officer, therefore, makes a summary enquiry for the purpose of updating the revenue record. A sale deed, once registered, has to be reflected in the revenue record, as a revenue officer cannot sit in judgement over complex and intricate rights of parties. Where a civil suit is pending adjudication, a note may be appended in the remarks column setting out the particulars of the civil suit and any stay order that may be in existence. The provisions in Chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, cannot override the provision of the Act, so as to prohibit a mutation of ownership. For the above conclusions, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgement reported as Gurcharan Singh V. Financial Commissioner (Revenue),Punjab, Recent Revenue Reports 1993(3) RRR 174. A relevant extract from this judgement reads as follows :- “ After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we hold that, in mutation proceedings, a Revenue Officer CWP No.9692 of 2008 6 should not go into the intricate question and he should give effect to a registered sale deed, irrespective of the fact whether the land owned by the vendor is surplus or not. Proceedings in mutation cases are always of summary nature and confer no prima facie rights and so, the parties are always left to go to an appropriate civil court in matters of serious disputes regarding the title etc. In our opinion, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade did the right thing in sanctioning the mutations in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the registered sale deeds which have not been counter manded by any proper authority from the court.” In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 12.5.2005, 24.1.2006, 28.6.2007 and 15.1.2008, are set aside and the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malout is directed to enter a mutation, on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is clarified that the mutation is being recorded for the purpose of updating the revenue record and shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the validity of the sale deed or the proprietary and possessory rights of the parties. The petitioner shall not be entitled to allege or assert his individual separate possession over any portion of the land. No order as to costs. 8.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE