LPA No.329 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.329 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 5, 2009 MANGAL SINGH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB ...RESPONDENTS CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. SANDEEP SINGH DEOL, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 9.3.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the writ petition was dismissed and the prayer of the petitioner not to sanction mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the State Government was rejected. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the father of the appellants Harbhajan Singh had sold the land in question in favour of Punjab Government on the basis of sale deed dated 28.11.1975 and payment had been received by the vendor. Although the land was sold to the Government, however, the same was not mutated in its favour. The argument of the counsel for the appellants that the Gram Panchayat has no locus standi to file the present petition and that the land was never sold by the father of the petitioner in favour of the Government is belied by the records as the land was sold vide registered sale deed on 28.11.1975. This LPA No.329 of 2009 -2- fact was not denied by the appellants before the Revenue Courts. Once the land has been sold then the appellants cannot challenge recording of the mutation in favour of the Government. In fact the successors of Harbhajan Singh, i.e. for appellants have already enjoyed the fruits of the land by remaining in possession of the land for a considerable long period in connivance with the officials of the revenue department. The land in dispute was sold on 28.11.1975 by Harbhajan Singh who had also received the entire payment. Counsel for the appellants has also contended that it was the Civil Court which was the appropriate forum for deciding the disputed mutation. It is a well settled proposition of law that mutation does not confer any title. In case the appellants are aggrieved by recording of the mutation in favour of the Government, they may avail of any other remedy which may be available to them. No merit. Dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 5, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE