Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1086 (PNJ)

Santa Singh v. Jogindar Singh

2009-07-07

ROMILA DUBEY

body2009
Judgment Romila Dubey, J. 1. This revision petition is under section of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 against order dated 22.11.2005 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 7.5.2002 of S.D.M-cum-Collector, Patti. 2. Briefly the facts of this case are that on the basis of civil court decree dated 10.3.1997 mutation No. 813 of Village Mann, Tahsil Patti District Amritsar was put up to A.C.I for decision who vide his order dated 1.9.2000 rejected the mutation mainly on the ground that the decree holder could not produce any proof regarding transfer of possession. Aggrieved by this order Jogindar Singh filed an appeal before the S.D.M-cum-Collector Patti, mainly on the grounds that civil court decree was binding upon the revenue officers and that he (Jogindar Singh) was already in possession of disputed land. The Collector vide his order dated 7.5.2002 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to A.C.II, Patti for sanctioning the mutation afresh after entering mutation as per civil court judgement and decree. Now Santa Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed on 22.11.2005. Hence the present revision petition. 3. The case was fixed for arguments in 19.5.2000 when Sh. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sudhir Paruthi counsel for the petitioner and Sh. S.K. Mahajan counsel for the respondent No. 1 requested to decide the case on the basis of written arguments filed by them. Today the case is fixed for announcement of orders. 4. I have carefully perused the written arguments filed by both counsel. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that civil suit for specific performance filed by Jogindar Singh was decreed by the civil court on 10.3.1997 with the direction to deposit the balance amount of consideration moneys within a period of two months and there after the sale deed was to be executed in favour of Jogindar Singh, The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no sale deed was executed according the judgment and decree dated 10.03.1997 and therefore no mutation can be entered and sanctioned. 5. On the other hand it is contended in the written arguments filed by counsel for the respondent No. 1 that respondent Jogindar Singh has deposited the amount in the court and conveyance deed has also been executed in his favour. 5. On the other hand it is contended in the written arguments filed by counsel for the respondent No. 1 that respondent Jogindar Singh has deposited the amount in the court and conveyance deed has also been executed in his favour. It is contended that appeal filed against this judgement dated 10.3.1997 has been dismissed by the court of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Additional District Judge Amritsar and no further appeal has been filed against this order and therefore judgement and decree dated 10.3.1997 has attained finality. It is further contended that the Collector in his order dated 7.5.2002 has remanded the case to A.C.II, Patti fir deciding the mutation afresh after entering the mutation as per civil court judgement and decree. This order has been upheld by the Commissioner. It is contended that the findings and decree of the civil court are binding upon the revenue officers who cannot go beyond the findings of the civil court. 6. After careful perusal of the revision petition, orders and record of the lower courts as well as written arguments filed by the counsel for both the parties, I am of the considered view that the contentions made by the counsel for the respondents have weight. The findings of civil court are binding upon revenue officers. Therefore the Collector has rightly remanded the case to A.C. II for sanctioning the mutation afresh alter entering it (mutation) as per civil court decree. I do not see any miscarriage of justice. The orders of Collector and Commissioner are detailed and fully justified. I therefore uphold these orders. The revision petition is dismissed being without any merit.