Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 50 (HP)

DATTA RAM v. JAGDEV SINGH

2006-03-14

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER This revision petition has been preferred by the Shri Datta Ram & another, petitioners under Section 17 of HP. Land Revenue Act, against the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner, whereby the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed and the direction issued to by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Una through his order dated 7.12.1999 in appeal 8 of 1999 to the Assistant Collector IInd, Haroli to sanction the mutation No. 110 in accordance with the Sale Deed and law, was upheld as not suffering from any legal/technical irregularity. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade rejected mutation No. 110 on 11.12.1998 whereby sale seed (sic-Deed) executed by Shri Jeet Singh in favour of Shri Jagdev Singh was entered in the register of mutations by the patwari concerned on the grounds that there is a case pending before the Court of learned sr. Sub-Judge, Una qua the land in dispute. 3. Shri Jagdev Singh and others filed an appeal before the Collector Sub-Division, Una who allowed the same on 7.12.1999 and directed that the mutation be sanctioned on basis of the sale deed. 4. Shri Datta Ram and another assailed the order of the learned Collector before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act who upheld the order of the Collector on 22.3.2002. It is against this order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner dated 22.3.2002. It is against this order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner dated 22.3.2002 that this revision petition has been filed. 5. The record of the lower courts were called for and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate has reiterated the contents of the revision petition and argued that status quo order had been passed by, the Civil Court and therefore the learned Assistant Collector 11 Grade was right in rejecting the mutation. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Surinder Saklani Advocate has argued that the mutation could not have been rejected and order of the Civil Court finally passed in the matter can be given effect in the revenue record accordingly. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Surinder Saklani Advocate has argued that the mutation could not have been rejected and order of the Civil Court finally passed in the matter can be given effect in the revenue record accordingly. 8. It is seen form the record that the sale deed through which Shri Jeet Singh acquired interest in the land that is the subject of partition is dated 24.8.1998. The date of the stay order issued by the Senior Sub-Judge, Una in file No. 228/98 titled as Shri Datta Ram versus Shri Jagdev Singh, Shri Jeet Singh etc. directing the parties to "maintain status quo qua possession, construction and alienation of the suit property" is dated 29.6.1999. Attestation of mutation does not confer any new right on the buyer of the property but only recognizes the right which has been acquired due to execution of the sale deed. Hence, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade acted in correctly in rejecting the mutation No. 110 intended to give effect to the transaction reflected in the registered sale deed and the Sub-Divisional Collector acted rightly in accepting the appeal and directing the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to attest the mutation. The learned Commissioner has upheld this order of the Sub-Divisional; Collector and I see no ground for interfering with his order dated 22.3.2002. 9. The revision petition is rejected. 10. Record of lower courts be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Announced in the open court today the 14th March, 2006.