IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2178 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 28, 2011 SMT. AMARJIT KAUR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. SS Rangi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This judgment shall dispose of three civil writ petitions viz. CWP 2178 of 2010 (Smt. Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others), CWP 2180 of 2010 (Smt. Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP 2268 of 2010 (Smt. Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2 For reference to record, CWP 2178 of 2010 (Smt. Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others) is being taken up. 3 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Payal, District Ludhiana (respondent No.3), vide which the sanction of mutation has been rejected. The following has been Civil Writ Petition No.2178 of 2010 2 recorded in the said order:- “At Payal dated 28.10.99. This mutation of sale is presented in the public gathering on the identification of Jaspal Singh Nambardar of the village. Patwari Halqa has reported that the parties have not come present despite repeated information. Hence the mutation is rejected. Mutation fee remitted.” 4 An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected vide order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Collector, Payal, on the ground that the order (Annexure P-3) had been challenged beyond limitation. The petitioner carried a revision, which has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P-5), for the same reason. The petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-6). Orders (Annexures P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6) are under challenge. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the transferee under a registered sale deed. The registered sale deed, in summary proceedings, is required to be given regard and the mutation entered accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that on registration of the sale deed, the mutation was entered by the Patwari on 16.5.1999. It was compared on 30.5.1999 and forwarded to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade kept the proceedings pending. Till that point in time, Civil Writ Petition No.2178 of 2010 3 there was no contest to the sanction of mutation. The petitioner is a resident of Canada and, therefore, went abroad. The petitioner presumed that the mutation would have been sanctioned. Subsequently, it was found that the mutation had not been sanctioned and, therefore, an appeal was filed, which has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-4). 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order (Annexure P-3) is without any adjudication or consideration, as is reflected from a bare perusal of the order and, therefore, the technicalities under the Limitation Act are not attracted. 7 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner is required to explain every days delay as to when the petitioner went abroad and as to when the petitioner came to know about passing of the order (Annexure P-3). 8 I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9 A perusal of the order (Annexure P-3), as extracted above, indicates that the parties could not appear, which would include respondent No.4, and therefore, without adjudication, the mutation was rejected. It is not in dispute that the sale deed is a registered document and was forwarded for being entered in the record. Be that as it may, because there is no adjudication by the prescribed authority, in my considered opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case should have been heard on merits. 10 In view of the above, the petition is allowed and Civil Writ Petition No.2178 of 2010 4 orders (Annexures P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6) are hereby quashed. The matter is relegated to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Payal to consider the issue and pass orders, as required by law, which should be in conformity with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Law Administration Manual. 11 The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Payal, District Ludhiana, on 18.4.2011. 12 Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Special Secretary. March 28, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?