Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1878 (PNJ)

Virsa Singh v. Gurnam Singh

2007-10-17

S.C.AGRAWAL

body2007
ORDER S.C. Agrawal, F.C. - This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for setting aside the order dated 15.6.2005 passed by Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. Mutation No. 1820 of village Talwandi Bharon, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar was sanctioned on 24.6.2003 by A.C. IInd Grade Nakodar for transfer of land from Balkar Singh in favour of Virsa Singh, Sucha Singh, Kala Singh, Bakhtawar Singh and Balwinder Singh on the basis of registered sale deed dated 6.6.2003. The order sanctioning this mutation was challenged before the Collector Nakodar by Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh on the ground that they had not been summoned and that possession of the land had not been transferred. The Collector accepted their appeal on the ground of lack of transfer of possession and rejected the mutation vide his order dated 31.5.2004. Aggrieved by this order Virsa Singh, Sucha Singh etc. filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, which was rejected by him on 15.6.2005. Hence the present petition. 3. The case came up for consideration today. Only the counsel for the petitioner was present and the counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear despite the fact that he was present on the earlier dates. The matter is, therefore, being decided on the basis of perusal of record and submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. 4. The Collector accepted the appeal of Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh against the order sanctioning the mutation on the ground that the possession of land had not been delivered. However, the Collectors order does not mention in what capacity Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh challenged the order of the A.C. IInd Grade Nakodar. According to the jamabandi Balkar Singh is shown as absolute owner in possession of the land involved in the mutation and he has no objection to sanction of the mutation. Therefore, Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh were not concerned with this mutation and had no locus standi to file this appeal. This important point has been missed by the Ld. Collector and the Ld. Commissioner. It appears that Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh are involved in some kind of litigation with Balkar Singh and they challenge the title of Balkar Singh to the land. This important point has been missed by the Ld. Collector and the Ld. Commissioner. It appears that Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh are involved in some kind of litigation with Balkar Singh and they challenge the title of Balkar Singh to the land. However, as long as Balkar Singh is recorded as owner in possession of the land in the jamabandi, he is well within his rights to sell it. Moreover, the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court have also held in the judgment reported in Punjab Law Reporter Volume CXL (2005(2) page 103 that a mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of a registered sale-deed even if the possession had not been transferred in accordance therewith. 5. In view of the above discussion, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders of the Commissioner and the Collector, and restore the order dated 24.6.2003 of the A.C. IInd Grade Nakodar. Petition allowed.