Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3375 (PNJ)

Balkar Singh v. Sukhdev Singh

2006-08-24

K.K.BHATNAGAR

body2006
ORDER K.K. Bhatnagar, FC - This revision petition is filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 20.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide which he set aside the order dated 8.9.2000 passed by the Collector, Amritsar and rejected the mutation Nos. 1070 to 1074 of village Rampur Narotampur sanctioned on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that five mutations number 1070 to 1074, in respect of land measuring 42 kanals 1 marla of village Rampur Narotampur, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Amritsar were entered on the basis of five sale deeds in favour of Balkar Singh and others. These mutations were objected to by Sukhdev Singh, the present respondent on the ground that the vendor Ram Lal and Prem Lal etc. had entered into an agreement to sell the land to him vide agreement dated 12.6.1995 but did not actually sell that time. The mutations being contested were sent to A.C. 1st Grade (SDM), Khadoor Sahib. A.C. 1st Grade vide order dated 16.3.2000 rejected the mutations on the ground that a suit of Sukhdev Singh for ownership was pending in the civil Court and a dispute was going on about possession between Sukhdev Singh and Balkar Singh and others. 3. The petitioners, Balkar Singh and others filed an appeal before ADC-cum- Collector, Amritsar, who, observing that Revenue Officers were bound to act upon the registered sale deeds, sanctioned the mutations on 8.9.2000. 4. The respondent, Sukhdev Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division who vide order dated 20.2.2002 rejected the mutations on the ground that the matter was pending before the civil Court and the order of civil Court would be final. The petitioner, Balkar Singh and others have filed the present revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. 5. I have gone through the written arguments filed by both the parties and the record of the lower courts. Two things here are relevant. The facts on record seems to show that Ram Lal and Prem Lal etc. did enter into an agreement to sell the land to Sukhdev Singh but in the agreement itself, Ram Lal and Prem Lal said that the possession would be transferred only when the land was sold. Two things here are relevant. The facts on record seems to show that Ram Lal and Prem Lal etc. did enter into an agreement to sell the land to Sukhdev Singh but in the agreement itself, Ram Lal and Prem Lal said that the possession would be transferred only when the land was sold. To get possession of the land, Sukhdev Singh went to the civil Court where a dispute about possession is going on. However, there is no decision or even a stay order from civil Court. Thus, Revenue Officers can decide the case as per revenue law. 6. Why Ram Lal and Prem Lal signed an agreement with Sukhdev Singh but actually sold the land to Balkar Singh and others is not for this court to go into. Paper file shows that five mutations are on the basis of regular sale deeds and cannot be questioned. Sanctioning of mutations are summary proceedings and do not confer any title. Revenue Officers are bound to sanction mutations on the basis of a validly registered sale deed. Necessary changes in the revenue record will be done whenever the decision of the civil court comes in suit for specific performance filed by the respondent Sukhdev Singh. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order dated 8.9.2000 of Collector, Amritsar and accordingly uphold the same. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the orders dated 20.2.2002 of Commissioner are set aside. To be communicated to both the parties. Petition allowed.