Petitioner challenged orders rejecting mutation sanctioned on a registered sale deed. Court held revenue authorities cannot examine sale deed validity and quashed impugned orders.
Set aside orders of Financial Commissioner and Commissioner; parties relegated to civil court remedy.
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.
CWP No.15456 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 15456 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 27, 2012
Rachhminder Kaur
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.2 – Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide which order dated 21.02.2003 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Collector, Ludhiana and order dated 26.08.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ludhiana (East) have been set aside and to sanction mutation No. 5290 of Village Nandpur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana has been sanctioned on the basis of sale deed bearing Wasika No.78 dated 22.04.2002.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 6 Kanals from respondent No.3 through sale deed
CWP No.15456 of 2010 2
Wasika No.78 dated 22.04.2002 (Annexure P/1) situated in the revenue limits of Village Nandpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. After the registration of the sale deed, mutation No. 5290 was entered by the revenue patwari on the basis of the sale deed. The said mutation was objected to by respondent no.3. After recording brief statements and hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade sanctioned the mutation on 26.08.2002 (Annexure P/2) on the basis of the registered sale deed. Thereafter, respondent no.3 preferred an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 21.02.2003 (Annexure P/3) by the Collector. Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P/4), the Commissioner has allowed the revision and case was remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for fresh decision. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P/5). Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the mutation was rightly sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and upheld by the Collector. The order of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner are against law and without any basis. The validity of the sale deed cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities are bound to sanction the mutation as per the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the
CWP No.15456 of 2010
3
Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have rightly came to the conclusion that no prejudice will be caused by the remand order to any of the parties and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade will decide the case afresh.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
It is settled principle of law that the validity of the sale deed cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities. They are required to sanction the mutation on the basis of the registered document. This is a statutory obligation of the revenue officers to sanction mutation when registered sale deed is forward to them. In the present case, the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law and are hereby set aside. It is important to note here that Avtar Singh – respondent No.3 had earlier filed civil suit which was instituted on 31.08.2002 for declaration with regard to the impugned sale deed No. 78 dated 22.04.2002, which has been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. Ultimate decision will be dependent upon the civil court decision. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature. Ultimately regarding the validity of the sale deed, Civil Court finding will be binding on the parties.
In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of accordingly and the parties are relegated to the remedy of the Civil Court.
No costs.
March 27, 2012 vkd
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the validity of the sale deed can be examined by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings.
Whether the orders of the Financial Commissioner and Commissioner setting aside mutation sanction are maintainable.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of now or remitted to civil court for determination of title.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rachhminder Kaur
State of Punjab
Avtar Singh
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
