Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1612 (PNJ)

Hari Dev v. Sarwan Singh

2006-04-21

S.K.SINHA

body2006
JUDGMENT S.K. SINHA, FC. 1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987, against the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner Appeals), Jalanhar Division, Jalandhar {in short Commissioner}. 2. The brief facts of this case are, that, Sagli Ram etc. sold land measuring 7K-2M on 7.9.1974 to Sunder Singh, through registered sale deed. Sunder Singh got mutation sanctioned in his name for 14-K-2M instead of 7K-2M by adding more khasra Nos. In the Sale Deed. Sagli Ram etc. (i.e. Kishan Dutt, Telu Ram and Shiv Dutt) filed civil suit and finally additional District judge, Jalandhar, vide his Judgment dated 29.7.1982 held that the sale of land measuring 7K-2M is (sic)sale for the additional 7K is void. Hence, Sagli Ram etc. requested (sic) to sanction mutation in their name regarding 7K land on the basis of Civil Court decision dated 29.7.1982 but A.C. 1st vide order dated 28.2.2001 adjourned the case sine die till passing the final order of competent Civil Court as it was stated that the High Court had granted stay against the judgment dated 29.7.1982. 3. Aggrieved by this order, Hari Dev, Baldev Raj, Ravi Dutt, Subash Chander, Veena Rani and Pushpa Devi ( all LRs of Sagli Ram) and also Kishan Dutt, Shiv Dutt and Telu Ram filed appeal before the Distt. Collector, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 8.1.2002 remanded the case back to A.C. 1st grade for fresh decision, on merits. The Distt. Collector had also held that as per the judgment dated. 29.7.1982 of Additional Judge, the sale of land measuring 7K-2M was valid and for the other 7K was void. There was no stay regarding 7K land and hence mutation could be stay regarding 7K land and hence mutation could be sanctioned regarding 7K. 4. On remand, the A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I, vide his order dated 21.5.2002, sanctioned mutation in favour of Hari Dev, Baldev Raj, Ravi Dutt, Subash Chander, Beena Rani, Pushpa (all LRs of Sagli Ram) and also Kishan Dutt, Shiv Dutt and Telu Ram (all were appellant before A.C. 1st , Jalandhar -I), because Additional Distt. Judge had declared them owners of the said land and there was no stay regarding the land measuring 7 Kanals. On further appeal, the collector (ADC), Jalandhar, vide order dated 22.11.2002 upheld the orders of A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I. 5. Judge had declared them owners of the said land and there was no stay regarding the land measuring 7 Kanals. On further appeal, the collector (ADC), Jalandhar, vide order dated 22.11.2002 upheld the orders of A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I. 5. The respondents, except respondent No. 5 and 6, preferred a revision petition before Commissioner (A), who, remanded the case to A.C. 1st Jalandhar for passing fresh orders in the light of Civil Court Judgment and decree. The Commissioner (A) had held that before Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the appellant was Sunder Singh lambardar. However, before Distt. Collector, Jalandhar the appellants were 9 persons including Hari Dev, whereas, in the order dated 21.5.2002, Hari Dev was mentioned as appellant in the heading, as such order dated 21.5.2002 was incomplete and confusing. 6. Still not satisfied with this order, the petitioners (Hari Dev etc.) have filed the present revision petition on the ground stated in the petition. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, filed an application on 8.4.2004 for deleting the name of petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 from the array of petitioners and they were allowed to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 and 6, on 19.4.2004. 7. The Ld. Counsels for both the parties have submitted their written arguments and the case was fixed for orders for 23.9.2005 but being busy on the administrative side, the undersigned could not announce the order earlier. 8. I have perused the written arguments as well as the entire record of the case and I am of the view that the present revisions petition has merits and the same deserves to be accepted. 9. Sagli Ram etc. had sold land measuring 7K-2M on 7.9.1974 to Sunder Singh through registered Sale Deed but Sunder Singh got Mutation sanctioned in his name for 14K-2M instead of 7K-2M by adding more khasra Nos. in the Sale Deed. This action was challenged by Sagli Ram etc. by way of Civil Suit and finally the Additional Distt. Judge, Jalandhar, vide his judgment dated 29.7.1982 held that sale regarding 7K-2M was valid and the sale regarding 7K was void. As such A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I , vide his order dated. in the Sale Deed. This action was challenged by Sagli Ram etc. by way of Civil Suit and finally the Additional Distt. Judge, Jalandhar, vide his judgment dated 29.7.1982 held that sale regarding 7K-2M was valid and the sale regarding 7K was void. As such A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I , vide his order dated. 21.5.2002, has rightly sanctioned mutation in favour of Hari Dev, Baldev Raj, Ravi Dutt, Subash Chander, Veena Rani, Pushpa Devi (all LRs of Sagli Ram) and also Kishan Dutt (through LR), Shiv Dutt and Telu Ram and on appeal, the Collector, jalandhar vide his order dated. 22.11.2002 upheld the order of A.C. 1st. I do not agree with the Commissioner that the order dated 21.5.2002 of A.C. 1st Jalandhar -I are not only Hari Dev but also Hari Dev etc. Which means all those who were appellants before Distt. Collector, Jalandhar in case No. 29/RR/2001 i.e. Hari Dev. Baldev Raj, Ravi Dutt, Subash Chander, Beena Rani, Pushpa Devi(LRs of Sagli Ram), Kishan Dutt, Shiv Dutt and Telu Ram. As per Judgment dated 29.7.1982 of Additional Distt. Judge, Jalandhar, it has been categorically established that sale of land measuring 7K is void qua Sunder Singh. Hence, it is very clear that all the appellants before the Distt. Collector, Jalandhar, in case No. 29/RR/2001 and now petitioners as well as respondents No. 5 (Kishan Dutt through LRs) and 6 (Shiv Dutt), are owners of this land and there is no stay (regarding this land measuring 7K). As such, the petitioners and respondents No. 5 and 6 are entitled to get the mutation of this land sanctioned in their name. Accordingly, the revisions petitions is accepted and order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner (A) is set aside and orders of A.C 1st dated 21.5.2002 is hereby upheld. Announced. PETITION ALLOWED