ORDER Mukul Joshi, F.C. - This is a Revision Petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 30.12.1999 vide which he accepted appeal filed by the present respondent against the order of the Collector, Ludhiana dated 28.2.1997 in the matter of mutation No. 5998 of village Dugri Had Bast No. 277 Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Vide this order the Collector, Ludhiana had dismissed an appeal filed by the present respondent against the order of the Assistant Collector-II-Grade, Ludhiana dated 13.8.1996 vide which mutation No. 5998 was sanctioned in favour of the present petitioner. The Commissioner, while accepting the appeal, set aside the order of the lower Court and remanded the case for deciding mutation afresh after hearing both the parties. The facts of the case are narrated in the order of the Collector and Additional Commissioner and need not be gone into again. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the mutation had rightly been sanctioned on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed dated 15.2.1985 executed by the Administrator of the Society in favour of the petitioner, and the appeal filed by the respondent against this order had rightly been dismissed by the Collector. The Commissioner had remanded the case on the ground that there were issues that required to be looked into, such as the eligibility of Administrator of the Society to execute the sale deed dated 15.2.1985, the delay in getting in the mutation entered and sanctioned, lack of notice to Raja Narinder Singh the President of the Society, the eligibility of sanction of a plot to a non-member of the Society etc. However, it was urged these were complicated legal issues and were not to be gone into by the Revenue Officer specially since the mutation was on the basis of a duly executed by Sale deed. Such matters were best left to Civil Courts and if the respondents had any grievance on this score they should approach the appropriate Civil Court. In fact the respondents had filed a Civil Suit No. 549 dated 27.7.1986 against the petitioner for permanent injunction in the same matter. Such matters were best left to Civil Courts and if the respondents had any grievance on this score they should approach the appropriate Civil Court. In fact the respondents had filed a Civil Suit No. 549 dated 27.7.1986 against the petitioner for permanent injunction in the same matter. They had also filed an application for the temporary injunction which was denied and in fact strictures were passed against Raja Narinder Singh, the Ex-President of Co-operative Society, and the appeal against this order of the Civil Judge was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 16.1.2001. This matter also figured in a reference made to the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, in which he held that the subsequent allotment to one Shri Saili by Raja Narinder Singh was improper and invalid. 3. On behalf of the respondent the issues referred to by the Commissioner were reiterated and it was urged that the Commissioner had rightly ordered the parties to appear before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, (SDM) Ludhiana (West). 4. I have gone through the case file and heard the arguments of the counsels. To begin with this is mutation is one in which a dispute or conduct is not ordinarily to be expected since it is based on a registered sale deed. The Assistant Collector-II-Grade, Ludhiana therefore had rightly sanctioned this mutation. As regards the issue raised by the petitioner that the complex legal issues referred to in the Commissioners order are not to be gone into by the Revenue Officers, my attention was drawn by the counsel of the petitioner to orders of the Addl. Registrar Co-operative Society dated 19.6.2000 in reference pertaining to this land, to the orders of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana dated 26.8.1996. A perusal of these orders will show that prima facie the sale of this land by the Co-operative Society to Shri Harjit Singh vide Registered Sale Deed has taken place, and the possession of the land is with the petitioner Sh. Harjit Singh. It is also clear that Shri Chaman Lal who was the Administrator of the Society and subsequently looked after the affairs of the Society by order of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society was authorized to execute the same. Harjit Singh. It is also clear that Shri Chaman Lal who was the Administrator of the Society and subsequently looked after the affairs of the Society by order of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society was authorized to execute the same. Since there is no ambiguity in these two issues I am of the view that there are sufficient grounds to sanction this mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed. As regard the other issues it is clear that these are subject of the Civil Suit filed by the present respondent, that is Civil Suit No. 549 dated 27.7.1996 and it would not be proper to interfere with the order of Assistant Collector-II-Grade on the basis of these, at this stage. The appropriate Civil Court will come to a decision on these issues in due course and thereafter if any change is to be made in the revenue record, the concerned parties can approach the appropriate revenue authority. In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted and the order of the Additional Commissioner, Patiala is set aside and the orders of the Collector, Ludhiana and Assistant Collector-II-Grade are upheld. To be communicated. Petition allowed.