Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3534 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. Vir Kaur

2006-09-12

K.K.BHATNAGAR

body2006
ORDER K.K. Bhatnagar, FC. - These are two revision petitions bearing the same names of parties filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 13.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in the matter of sanction of mutations. 2. The brief facts of this case are that two mutation Nos. 3070 and 3071 of village Chatiwind, District Amritsar were sanctioned by the A.C. 2nd Grade, Amritsar on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 30.6.2000 executed by Pal Kaur in favour of respondent, Vir Kaur. 3. The petitioner, Pritam Singh filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector, Amritsar-II mainly on the ground that a co-sharer can sell specific khasra numbers from a joint ownership only if he or she is in possession of these khasra numbers also that Pal Kaur sold in excess of her share. The Collector supported this proposition that only specific khasra numbers could be sold by a Co-sharer who was in possession of the same. In this case, khasra number 54/5 (7-12) was not in the possession of Pal Kaur but of the petitioner, Pritam Singh himself. The Collector accordingly accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of A.C. 2nd Grade vide his order dated 26.3.2001. 4. The respondent, Vir Kaur filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, mainly on the ground that Pal Kaur had not sold the land in excess of her share and no grounds for invalidity were pointed out in the lower court. However, the Commissioner also came to the conclusion that Pal Kaur had sold the khasra number, which was not in her possession. The Commissioner ordered, "Since the prayer is to the extent of setting aside the mutation of khasra No. 54/5, the appeal is accepted to that extent. Rest of the order of Tehsildar remains as it is. The order of the Collector is modified to that extent." Against that decision two revision petitions have been filed in this court. 5. I have gone through the revision petitions and record of the lower courts. In the grounds of the appeal filed before the Commissioner by Vir Kaur, her prayer was to accept her appeal and restore the order dated 19.7.2000 of A.C.-II Amritsar, setting aside the order dated 26.3.2001 of Collector, Amritsar-II. 5. I have gone through the revision petitions and record of the lower courts. In the grounds of the appeal filed before the Commissioner by Vir Kaur, her prayer was to accept her appeal and restore the order dated 19.7.2000 of A.C.-II Amritsar, setting aside the order dated 26.3.2001 of Collector, Amritsar-II. Smt. Pal Kaur widow of Bir Singh sold land measuring 17 kanals and 14 marlas through two registered sale-deeds dated 30.6.2000 to Vir Kaur and the mutations were sanctioned in favour of Vir Kaur by A.C.-II by 19.7.2000. Pritam Singh filed appeals before the Collector saying that he is in possession of khasra No. 54/5 (7-12) of the joint khata from which the land was sold by Pal Kaur to Vir Kaur. Hence, it was the plea of Pritam Singh only before the Commissioner to set aside the mutations qua khasra No. 54/5 and as such the appeal has been wrongly "accepted to that extent" by the Commissioner. I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the mutation is to be attested or rejected as a whole. It cannot be attested or rejected partly qua a particular khasra Number. Therefore, the case is remanded to the Court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar for fresh decision. A copy of this order be placed on the file of ROR No. 494 of 2003. To be communicated to the counsel/parties. Petition allowed.