L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 Date of Decision : 09.12.2009 Palwinder Singh and others ...Appellants Versus The Financial Commissioner and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B.S.Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 31.3.2009, wherein it was ordered that the mutation entries would be open to change on the basis of any decision that may be rendered by the Civil Court in the pending suit. Some facts leading to the said order passed by the learned Single Judge need to be noticed. One Anokh Singh was the owner of the land. He had four sisters namely Jinda, Piar Kaur, Amar Kaur and Kartar Kaur. Jinda filed a suit for possession claiming entire estate of Anokh Singh. Another suit was filed by remaining three sisters of Anokh Singh. The suit filed by Jinda was decreed by the learned trial Court on 19.1.1980, whereas the suit filed by the other three sisters was dismissed. The said judgment has attained finality. On the basis of said decree, the legal heirs of Jinda purportedly sold 3/4 share in the land in favour of the L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 2 present appellants vide three separate sale deeds dated 8.4.1994 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. Admittedly the mutation on the basis of sale sale was not entered in favour of the present appellants. As per the appellants, taking advantage of non-sanction of mutation, some of the legal heirs executed four sale deed in respect of land measuring 40 Kanals 9 Marlas in favour of respondent No.3 on 19.6.1996. Mutations on the basis of such sale deeds were sanctioned in favour of respondent No.3, which were disputed by the appellants before the Revenue Authorities. It may be noticed that a suit for declaration has been filed by the present appellants claiming title on the basis of sale deed dated 8.4.1994, whereas as per the appellants, one of the legal heir of Jinda has filed a separate suit challenging the sale deeds dated 19.6.1996. The said suits are pending trial before the learned trial Court. Learned Commissioner has remanded the question of mutation in favour of respondent No.3 to the Collector for fresh decision, allegedly in view of wrong finding that the civil suits stand decided. The said order passed by the learned Commissioner, was maintained by the learned Financial Commissioner. The Single Judge of this Court has set aside the said order and permitted the mutation entries to be sanctioned in favour of respondent No.3 subject to the decision of the civil suits. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the writ petition against the order of remand by the Commissioner was not maintainable. It is argued that while setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, this Court has adjudicated upon the rights of the parties and on the basis of such rights, L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 3 the respondents can alienate the property and thereby defeat the rights of the present appellants. Before we consider the argument that the writ petition against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner in respect of sanction of mutation was not maintainable, it is necessary to reiterate the scope of the revenue entries and the effect of mutation. In Sewa Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others 2007 (3) PLR 211, it was held to the following effect : "8. .....In (Thakur) Nirmal Singh and others Vs. Thakur Lal Rudra Partap Narain Singh and others AIR 1926 Privy Council 100, it has been held to the followed effect : "It is an error to suppose that the proceedings for the mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind, as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid." Subsequently, in Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2823, it was held to the following effect : ".....Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 4 conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment......" In Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner (2007) 6 SCC 186, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an entry in the revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record- of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil Court. In the aforesaid case, the question related to genuineness or otherwise of the Will. It was found that such dispute can be decided by the Civil Court alone. Later in Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (2008) 9 SCC 368, the Court has held to the following effect : "17. It is well settled that revenue records confer no title on the party. It has been recently held by this Court in Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner that such entries are relevant only for "fiscal purpose" and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings. 18. It is clear from the record that grievance of Respondent No.2 daughter, related to mutation entry. If the authorities under the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was limited to the entry in the revenue records and nothing more. It had no bearing whatsoever as to the right of ownership, inheritance or title to the property. In our opinion, therefore, neither the authorities under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have entered into the question of ownership, title or inheritance in the present proceedings and they ought to have decided the controversy limited to mutation entry in the revenue records. L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 5 19. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of by leaving all the parties to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in a competent civil court so far as substantive rights of ownership, title or inheritance are concerned...." It is a rule of judicial discretion that in the matter arising out of sanction of mutation, this Court does not interfere in such orders in exercise of the power of judicial review. The reason is that such order does not create or extinguish any rights of the parties. Mutation is primarily entered for the purposes of collecting land revenue from the persons in whose favour the mutation is entered. The rights of the parties in respect of title over the property are to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court alone. Therefore, in mutation matters, this Court does not interfere in the order passed as such disputed questions of title are left for adjudication by the Civil Court alone. It is one thing to say that the writ Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition regarding the orders in mutation proceedings and other to say that it will not interfere with the order passed. Though this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the orders passed in mutation proceedings in exercise of the powers of judicial review, but in view of the fact that such orders does not conclusively decided any of the lis between the parties, this Court normally does not interfere in the mutation proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that this Court should not have entertain the writ petition filed by respondent No.3. The argument that the respondents can alienate the property and defeat the rights of the present appellants is misconceived. In L.P.A.No.440 of 2009 6 mutation proceedings, the question of alienation is not relevant. Since, title suit is pending on behalf of the appellants, it is open to the appellants to seek an appropriate order from the Court, which is seized of the title dispute. Even otherwise, any alienation effected by the respondents, shall be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and will not effect any of the rights of the appellants. Therefore, mere threat of alienation is not sufficient to find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In view thereof, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order, which may warrant any interference in the present intra Court appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 09.12.2009 (JORA SINGH) Vimal JUDGE