Quashed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2012CWP/15500/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders by revenue authorities setting aside a sanctioned mutation based on a registered sale deed. The court held that revenue authorities cannot examine the validity of the sale deed and set aside the impugned orders, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Financial Commissioner and Commissioner set aside; parties relegated to Civil Court remedy.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 15500 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 15500 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 27, 2012

Sukhdev Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. K.S. Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶15

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. 5288 of Village Nandpur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana has been sanctioned on the basis of sale deed bearing Wasika No.77 dated 22.04.2002.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 7 Kanals from respondent No.3 through sale deed

¶17

CWP No. 15500 of 2010 2

¶18

No.77 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. 5288 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 allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 1^st 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.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

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.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the

¶22

CWP No. 15500 of 2010

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

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. 77 dated 27.08.2002, which has been dismissed. Ultimate decision will be dependent upon the civil court decision. Mutation proceedings are summary in nature. Ultimately regarding the validity of the sale deed, Civil Court verdict will be binding on the parties.

¶27

In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of accordingly and the parties are relegated to the remedy of the Civil Court.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

March 27, 2012 vkd

¶30

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Hry and Ors.

Nachattar Singh Vs S.C.O. and Anr.

Paramjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rachhminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.