In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.2657 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:25.2.2008 Ajit Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral): This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioner purchased land measuring 2.1/2 Marlas (75 Sq. yards) in Village Jhill from Baldev Singh (respondent No.4) vide sale deed No.3442 dated 4.6.2002 for consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-. Baldev Singh (respondent No.4), the vendor of the land delivered possession to the petitioner. The Halqa Patwari entered mutation in favour of the petitioner which was put up before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for sanction. At that time Nand Singh (respondent No.3) raised an objection that in fact Baldev Singh (respondent No.4) had entered into an agreement of sale with C.W.P. No.2657/2008 [2] him (Nand Singh). Accordingly, the mutation was declared contested and sent to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala vide his order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure-P.1) observed that the objector Nand Singh (respondent No.3) had not appeared. Besides, the Revenue Officer was bound to entertain a registered document. Accordingly, mutation was sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated 4.6.2002 in favour of the petitioner. Nand Singh (respondent No.3) aggrieved against the order dated 9.10.2002 (Annexure-P.1) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade filed an appeal before the Collector (ADC), Patiala. The Collector vide his order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure-P.2) disposed of the matter by observing that Nand Singh (respondent No.3) was required to be heard. Accordingly, the order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merit. Ajit Singh (petitioner) aggrieved against the order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure-P.2) of the Collector (ADC), Patiala preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide his order dated 21.1.2005 (Annexure-P.3) accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order and the case was remanded to the Collector (ADC), Patiala for fresh decision after hearing all concerned. Nand Singh aggrieved against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure-P.4) accepted the revision petition and ordered that the parties should appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala who shall record evidence of both the C.W.P. No.2657/2008 [3] parties afresh and pass a speaking order. The said order dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure-P.4) is now assailed by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a mutation is liable to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as the registered sale deed is in his favour. Besides, it is submitted that the revenue authorities are not required to go into intricate questions and are to give effect to registered documents. In support of his contentions learned counsel cites Gurcharan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 1993 (2) PLR 246 (DB) (P&H). It is also contended that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in terms of his order dated 21.1.2005 (Annexure-P.3) has clearly held that Nand Singh (respondent No.3) had alleged that he agreed to purchase the land in question and entered into an agreement of sale on 30.3.2001 for a sum of Rs.3,38,000/-. Besides, in terms of the said agreement Rs.3,28,000/- had been given as earnest money and only Rs.10,000/- remained to be paid. It was observed that there was no need to keep Rs.10,000/- by Nand Singh and fixing the date for registration of sale deed as 24.10.2001 as one who can pay Rs.3,28,000/- as `Biana' on 31.3.2001, there was no hitch for him to pay Rs.10,000/- more as the total sale consideration of Rs.3,38,000/-. Therefore, it is contended that the stand taken by Nand Singh (respondent No.3) is per se illegal and devoid of merit as the sale agreement set-up by him is clearly false. It is also contended that in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 sale has been defined to be a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner having paid the price for the purchase of suit property to Baldev Singh (respondent No.4) C.W.P. No.2657/2008 [4] has admittedly completed the sale. In the alternative, it is contended that the mutation proceedings are liable to be stayed as civil suit filed by Nand Singh (respondent No.3) is pending in the Civil Court against Dara Singh (respondent No.5) and Baldev Singh (respondent No.4). A reference has been made to the order dated 15.6.2002 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. In terms of the said order the application filed by Nand Singh (respondent No.3) for restraining defendants i.e. Baldev Singh (respondent No.4) and Dara Singh (respondent No.5) from interfering with his possession in the suit property has been dismissed. It is also contended that suit filed by the petitioner Ajit Singh is also pending and a reference has been made to the order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction restraining defendants Dara Singh (respondent No.5) and Nand Singh (respondent No.3) from interfering in the possession of the suit property. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the order that has been impugned by the petitioner was passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab on 15.11.2006 (Annexure-P.4). The petitioner has after the passing of the said order approached this Court by filing the present petition on 22.2.2008. Besides, a perusal of the said order passed by the Financial Commissioner would show that he has merely remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala who has to record evidence of both the parties afresh and pass a speaking order. It is not in dispute that Nand Singh (respondent C.W.P. No.2657/2008 [5] No.3) had not appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala. It is no doubt correct that revenue authorities are not to go into intricate questions of law and are to give effect to the registered sale deed as held by this Court in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra). However, the objector once he has been given a right to appear and contest the mutation is entitled to show that the registered sale deed on the basis of which mutation is sought to be got sanctioned is not liable to be sanctioned. Therefore, if the Financial Commissioner has ordered the compliance with the principles of natural justice, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. It is not shown as to what has happened before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala after the passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner on 15.11.2006. The contention that mutation proceedings are liable to be stayed till disposal of the civil suits that are stated to be pending is also not tenable. It is well settled that mutation proceedings are only for fiscal purpose and do not create any title in favour of the person in whose favour they are entered. The revenue authorities are always bound by the decision of the Civil Court in the matter of title. The suits that are shown to be then filed are suits for permanent injunction in which applications for interim injunctions have also been filed. Therefore, in case any finding is given by the Civil Courts for the purpose of title to the property the same would be binding on the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings. Therefore, no ground is made out for staying the mutation proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit. The revenue authorities are to take up the matter and after hearing both the sides to dispose of the matter with regard to sanction of mutation that is stated to be in dispute in the present petition. It is hoped C.W.P. No.2657/2008 [6] that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala shall consider and dispose of the mutation proceedings in terms of the order dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure- P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab as expeditiously as possible. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( S.S. Saron) Judge February 25, 2008. (Daya Chaudhary) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No