Dismissed

Hardeep Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Patiala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2012CWP/24499/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue orders rejecting mutation registration of a 20 Bigha land due to a pending civil suit involving a spouse's alleged charge. The court dismissed the petition, holding that revenue authorities acted correctly in refusing to validate a sale deed lacking requisite consent under prior civil court findings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without procedural merits; the petitioner is granted liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title.

Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vs Commissioner Patiala and Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 24499 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 24499 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 13, 2012

¶5

Hardeep Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Paramjeet Singh, J.

¶11

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 17.05.2011 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.1 – Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, order dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by respondent No.2 - District Collector, Sangrur and order dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malerkotla, whereby mutation No. 688 of Village Chattriwala, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur has been rejected on the basis of sale deed dated 12.08.2009 registered on 13.08.2009 (Annexure P/1) with respect to land measuring 20 Bigha 1 Biswa 10 Biswasi.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused

¶13

the record.

¶14

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revenue authorities are bound to sanction a mutation on the basis

¶15

CWP No. 24499 of 2011 2

¶16

of sale deed dated 12.08.2009/13.08.2009 (Annexure P/1). The revenue authorities have wrongly rejected the mutation on the objection of Jinder Kaur (respondent No.4), wife of vendor Charan Singh.

¶17

The reading of the impugned orders makes it clear that Jinder Kaur had filed a suit against Charan Singh for creating a charge on the property. That suit was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the statement of Charan Singh in Civil Court to the effect that without the consent of Jinder Kaur, he will not sell the property. It was held by the Court that the parties shall be bound by the compromise. Finding has been recorded by the authorities that Charan Singh seller was living with Hardip Singh and Karamjit Singh, petitioners and as such, they were aware of the proceedings in the Civil Suit. For this reason and rightly so, the revenue authorities have held that the petitioners cannot plead ignorance of the bar on the authority of Charan Singh to sell land without consent of Jinder Kaur in view of Civil Court order. Since, the revenue authorities below have recorded concurrent finding of fact, no direction can be issued to the revenue authorities for sanction of mutation on the basis of sale deed, since sale deed is without the consent of Jinder Kaur which is clear cut violation of the Civil Court order, such sale deed cannot be given effect too in the revenue record.

¶18

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to look into the correctness of the mutation. The instant writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of their title and possession. If the civil suit is filed, any observation or decision made by

¶19

CWP No. 24499 of 2011 3

¶20

the revenue authorities in the summary proceedings of the mutation, shall not prejudice the mind of the Civil Court and mutation shall be carried out strictly, in accordance with the final decision in the civil suit.

¶21

January 13, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge

Hardeep Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Patiala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh and Anr. v. Commissioner Patiala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Mardan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ram Lal Chowkidar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Wakf Board and Anr.