Civil Writ Petition No.20839 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20839 of 2011 Date of Decision:01.12.2011 Ranjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, Gurdas Singh son of Rala Singh (respondent No.5) was the owner and in possession and sold the land in dispute to Balbir Singh son of Arrur Singh (respondent No.4), by means of a registered sale-deed No.268 dated 06.05.2009. He was stated to have delivered its possession to the vendee, in pursuance of the sale-deed. Since, petitioner-Ranjit Singh son of Hardev Singh raised the objection on the ground that respondent No.5 has entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the same land in his favour, so, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade referred the matter (disputed mutation) and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amloh, adjourned the proceedings sine die, to await the decision of the civil suit filed by the petitioner-objector, vide order dated 01.12.2009(Annexure P-3). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-3), Balbir Singh-respondent No.4 filed the appeal(Annexure P-4), which was accepted and the disputed mutation was ordered to be sanctioned on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 06.05.2009, by the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, by way of impugned order dated 20.05.2010(Annexure P-5). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-5), the petitioner filed the appeal Civil Writ Petition No.20839 of 2011 2 (Annexure P-6), which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, through the medium of impugned order dated 03.05.2011(Annexure P-7), which in substance is as under:- “I am of the opinion that the Collector has rightly sanctioned the mutation on the basis of sale-deed dated 06.05.2009 as the same is a registered document and a revenue officer is duty bound to implement the registered documents in revenue record if he is satisfied about its genuineness. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it cannot be kept in abeyance only keeping in view the pending civil litigation and the same has to be sanctioned for updation of revenue record. The appellant is objecting the sanctioning of mutation only on the ground that he is having an agreement to sell dated 04.12.2008 executed by Gurdas Singh in his favour but it is evident from the record that the agreement to sell executed in favour of present respondent was prior to the agreement executed in favour of appellant. The appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the sale-deed dated 06.05.2009 as forged and fabaricated document and the same has not been set aside by any of the competent court till today. The Collector has rightly sanctioned the mutation on the basis of sale-deed dated 06.05.2009 and there is no illegality in the same. As such, the appeal filed in this case has no merits and the same is hereby rejected. Admittedly, the civil litigation is pending regarding the sale-deed in question and if the civil court gives any relief in favour of appellant then he can approach the revenue authorities for subsequent amendment in the revenue record.” 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-5 and P-7), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. However, the arguments of the learned counsel that Gurdas Singh (respondent No.5) had agreed to sell the land in litigation to the petitioner by way of agreement to sell dated 04.12.2008 and since the subject matter of the sale-deed Civil Writ Petition No.20839 of 2011 3 of respondent No.4 is subjudiced in civil suit, so, the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division committed a legal mistake to sanction the mutation in favour of respondent No.4 on the basis of registered sale-deed, lack merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.5 was the owner and in possession and sold the land in dispute to respondent No.4, vide registered sale-deed No.268 dated 06.05.2009. He was stated to have delivered the possession to the vendee in pursuance of the aforesaid sale-deed. The Collector, after taking into consideration the factum of the registered sale-deed and delivery of possession, in pursuance thereof, rightly ordered that the mutation be sanctioned on the basis of registered sale-deed. The Revenue Officer is duty bound to enter the mutation on the basis of registered sale-deed, if he satisfied about its genuineness. The petitioner is not disputing the execution of the sale-deed. On the contrary, he has claimed that respondent No.5(vendor) had already entered into an agreement to sell dated 04.12.2008 in his favour. It cannot possibly be disputed that the mere execution of the agreement to sell does not confer any right in the property in dispute. It is now well-settled proposition of law that the proceedings of mutations are not judicial proceedings. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue, and to complete the revenue record in order to avoid any further complication. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Suraj Bhan and others Versus Financial Commissioner and others, 2007(6) SCC 186 and Rajinder Singh Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, 2008(9) SCC 368, ruled that the mutation entries in revenue record confer no title on the property. These are relevant for fiscal purpose and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil court in an appropriate proceeding. It was also held that the party aggrieved by the orders Civil Writ Petition No.20839 of 2011 4 passed in mutation proceedings can always redress his grievance by way of filing suit for title, (which is already pending between the parties in the present case). 9. In this manner, to me, the Collector has rightly sanctioned the mutation in favour of respondent No.4 on the basis of registered sale-deed. 10. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders(Annexures P-5 and P-7) are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this respect. 11. Thus, the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Therefore, to me, as no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, is made out, therefore, the impugned orders(Annexures P-5 and P-7) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of final adjudication of civil litigation between the parties, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. 14. Be that as it may, however, it is made clear that nothing observed hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on the subsequent civil proceedings, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition in mutation matter only. 15. Needless to mention here that, sanction of mutation would naturally be subject to the ultimate decision of the civil court. December 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No