Dismissed

Gurjeet Kaur and Others v. F.C. Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012CWP/11974/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders rejecting their application for land mutation. The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that mutation does not confer title and that the High Court should not interfere with revenue orders. Petitioners were directed to file a civil suit for title or possession.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file a civil suit for declaration of title or possession.

Gurjeet Kaur and Others Vs F.C. Punjab and Others — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 11974 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 11974 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 12, 2012

¶5

Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others

¶6

... Petitioner s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Financial Commissioner and others ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.

¶10

Present: Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶12

Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶13

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 12.04.1999 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.4 – Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana, order dated 02.11.1999 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.3 – Collector, Ludhiana, order dated 26.07.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Patiala and order dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No.1 – Financial Commissioner, whereby mutation on the basis of registered sale deed dated 10.09.1996 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the land measuring 57 kanals 7 Marlas situated in Village Kharak, Hadbast No. 120, Tehsil and District Ludhiana has been rejected.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶16

CWP No. 11974 of 2011

¶17

¶18

record.

¶19

In this case, mutation in favour of the petitioners has been refused on the ground that neither the vendor nor the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute. The Central State Seed Farm Ladowal is in possession of the land in dispute.

¶20

I am of the view that mutation does not confer any title. The finding recorded during the mutation proceedings while sanctioning or rejecting the same in favour of either of the parties in a suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of sale deed etc., does not operate as res judicata. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to look into the correctness of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, especially in view of the order passed in C.W.P. No. 13909 of 2011 – Smt. Gurjeet Kaur and others vs. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and others, decided on 03.08.2011, wherein order dated 02.11.1999 (Annexure P/5) of the Collector was also under challenge. This writ petition also arise from the same order of the Collector.

¶21

The instant writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title or possession on the basis of a registered document. If the civil suit is filed, any observation made in the summary proceedings of the mutation by the revenue authorities starting from the Assistant Collector Ist Grade upto the Financial Commissioner, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall independently decide the suit in accordance with law.

¶22

( Paramjeet Singh ) Judge

¶23

January 12, 2012 vkd

Gurjeet Kaur and Others v. F.C. Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjeet Kaur and Others v. F.C. Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Paul and Anr. Vs Pb. State Elecy. Board and Ors.

Harbhagwan Singh Vs Financial Comm & Anr.

Rajpal Vs State of Haryana etc.

Arjan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Run Singh Vs Commandant 54,BN B.S.F.& Anr.

Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.