The court dismissed a writ petition filed after a 14-year delay seeking quashing of the cancellation of land mutation. The judges found the approach highly belated, suffered from laches, and lacked adequate explanation for the inordinate silence despite allegations of family illness.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 04, 2009
Bhupinder Lal and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have impugned the order of cancellation of the mutation of their ownership in respect of the land in question through this writ petition.
The agriculture land is located in village Chappar Chiri, Tehsil Kharar District Ropar (Now Tehsil and District Mohali) and was allotted to Gurdial Singh and Gurbax Singh. Subsequently, this allotment was cancelled, when it was noticed that some excess land was allotted to said Gurbax Singh and Gurdial Singh. The land was, thus, allotted to Kishan Singh son of Gurdit Singh. Chint Ram,
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
predecessor in interest of the petitioners, bought this land from Kishan Singh. The petitioners are the sons of Chint Ram. Gurdial Singh and Gurbax Singh subsequently filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, urging that the Tehsildar had not taken their choice while seeking surrender of the land allotted in excess. This revision was accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who, however, protected the rights of the vendees/purchasers.
On a suo-motu reference made, the allotment made in favour of Kishan Singh was set-aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 29.9.1969. Chint Ram, father of the petitioners, impugned the said order by filing CWP Nos.3163 and 3165 of 1969. These writ petitions were, however, dismissed. It was noticed that the rights of the petitioners had been protected. The petitioners accordingly filed an application before the authorities to allot the surrendered/retrieved area from the erstwhile allottees i.e. Gurdial Singh and Gurbax Singh. This representation was accepted on 13.5.1983. Directions were accordingly issued that the retrieved area from Gurdial Singh and Gurbax Singh be re-allotted in the name of Kishan Singh through the petitioners, who were the vendees. The mutation of excess land retrieved from said Gurdial Singh and Gurbax Singh was, thus, sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. It is claimed that the petitioners were also put in possession on 29.9.1986 and thereafter continued to be in possession as was recorded in various jamabandies from the years 1986 to 1994.
It appears that in the year 1994, the mutation in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. This is stated to be without any notice
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners would refer to an order dated 14.7.1994 passed by Assistant Collector for review of the mutation as the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing while changing the mutation. The file was accordingly sent to Collector, Rupnagar, on 2.8.1994, seeking permission to review the mutation. Collector, however, put a note to the effect that Sub Divisional Officer has not made any such recommendation and as such, there was no need of review. From this, it is urged that it would be clear that no notice was served on the petitioners before change of mutation of ownership.
Hereafter, the petitioners appear to have kept silent about seeking change in the mutation, which had been changed. To justify, the counsel for the petitioners would refer to the representations dated 14.7.1994, 26.2.1997 and 18.11.1999, to explain this delay on the part of the petitioners. It is also pleaded that they could not seek redressal of their grievance as wife of petitioner, Bhupinder Lal, was suffering from acute heart problem and subsequently died in the year 2002. The petitioners have concededly made the present approach seeking change in mutation after 14 years. They have no explanation to explain this inordinate delay except to show that they made some representations and the sickness of wife of one petitioner. The representations have not been placed on record. The wife of petitioner, Bhupinder Lal, died in 2002 and there are no reasons forthcoming for remaining silent from years 2002 to 2008.
This petition has been filed in the year 2008, on the basis of an information received under the Rights of Information Act through a communication dated 26.2.2008. Subsequently, the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
petitioners had also sought information about the reasons for cancellation of allotment of the land and then served a legal notice on 6.10.2008. In this background, the writ petition is filed, seeking quashing of the mutation, which was made as far as back in the year 1994.
When confronted with the delay in making the present approach, learned counsel for the petitioners could only say that the petitioners had made representations and that they could not pursue their remedies because of family circumstances i.e. the sickness of wife of one of the petitioners. The present writ petition, thus, has been filed after inordinate delay of 14 years, which is unexplained. The submission that the rights of the petitioners are recognised would also not help their cause as they have failed to take action to seek correction of change of mutation. It is not a case that they did not know about this change in mutation but have simply not taken any action to challenge the change ordered in mutation. The petitioners can not be heard to seek relief at this belated stage.
The writ petition is highly belated and suffers from latches and is accordingly dismissed.
February 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of cancellation of mutation filed after an inordinate delay of 14 years without adequate explanation should be entertained.
Whether the principle of laches deprives the petitioner of the right to relief in a belated approach after 14 years of knowing the change in mutation.
Bhupinder Lal and another
The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
