C.W.P No. 9062 of 1990 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 9062 of 1990 Date of decision : December 02, 2010 Indraj, ...... Petitioner v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG Haryana for the official respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed :- “ Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to address arguments. Adjourned to 29.11.2010.” Today none has entered appearance for the petitioner even on second call. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 3.9.1987, 22.12.1987, 30.11.1989 and 7.2.1990, Annexures P-1 to P-4 C.W.P No. 9062 of 1990 ::2:: respectively, whereby the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the original mortgagor instead of the petitioner who is claimed to be the subsequent mortgagee. Originally, the revenue authorities declined to sanction mutation in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the subsequent mortgage created in his favour was merely a device to save the land of the original mortgagor who was a big landowner. The plea that that view is wrong is not meritless. However, the Financial Commissioner has held as follows :- “ 3. In mutation proceedings, the revenue officers do not decide the question of title. Redemption can, therefore, by normally be allowed only to the extent of agreement between both the parties or on the basis of a court order. In this case respondent No.2, original mortgagee, has accepted redemption in favour of respondent No.1 mortgagor, for Rs.4200/-. The Assistant Collector has, therefore, rightly sanctioned the redemption to this extent and has rightly ordered that if there is a further mortgage from respondent No.1 to the petitioner, a separate mutation be got entered for that purpose. There is no illegality or infirmity in these orders. Revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.” In this view of the matter, there is no bar for the petitioner to apply for a fresh mutation from the original mortgagor but he cannot be allowed to challenge the mutation in favour of the original mortgagor. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 02, 2010. JUDGE `kk'