Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 793 (PNJ)

Jeet Singh v. Sarwan Singh

2009-04-24

B.C.GUPTA

body2009
ORDER B.C. Gupta, F.C. - This is a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 7/5/1887 against the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 6.5.2004, the Patwari Halqa entered mutations No. 2012 and 2013 of village Raipur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar. The petitioner Jeet Singh raised objection that as per family partition, the land, in question, is owned by them and they also held the possession of the same. Being contested, the mutations were sent to A.C.Ist grade, Jalandhar, for decision, who after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 27.5.2005 rejected the mutations. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Collector who after hearing both the parties, accepted the same and sanctioned the mutations in question. Not satisfied with this order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner who after hearing both the parties, dismissed the same vide his order dated 10.8.2006. Not satisfied with this order, the petitioner has come before this court with the present petition. 3. At the time of arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, saying that a mutation should not be sanctioned unless the possession has been transferred to the other party. He further stated that the petitioner is in possession of the said land for more than 25 years and have also made construction on the said land. In fact, the factum of construction has also been admitted by the respondent. The respondent has also filed a suit for partition which indicates clearly that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. The orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector should therefore, be set aside and the order dated 27.5.2005 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st grade, vide which he rejected the said mutations, should be upheld. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2005(2) PLR 103 and stated that as categorically held by the learned High Court, a mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of a registered sale deed even if the possession has not been transferred. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent produced a copy of judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2005(2) PLR 103 and stated that as categorically held by the learned High Court, a mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of a registered sale deed even if the possession has not been transferred. It has been held in this order that refusal to sanction the mutation, shall cause serious prejudice to the rights of a party, as without getting himself recorded as a co-sharer in the revenue record, he shall not be able to make an application for the partition of the land. 5. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. It is very clear from record that the sale deed has been voluntarily executed between the parties and the said sale deed has not been challenged anywhere. It is also very clear that the purpose of a mutation is to keep the revenue record up-to-date and it is the duty of the revenue officer to carry out the necessary changes in the record of rights by the instrument of mutation. In so far is the transfer of possession is concerned, I fully agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent that even if the possession has not been transferred, mutation can be sanctioned, so that the vendee step in as a co- sharer in the land, in question and thereafter he earns rights to make application for the partition of the said land. The ruling given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported by the counsel for the respondent, makes it very clear that the title gets transferred by virtue of the registered sale deed and the said transfer should be allowed to be reflected in the revenue record by means of a mutation. Based on this discussion, the petition is ordered to be dismissed and the orders of the Commissioner and the Collector are sustained. Announced in open court. Petition dismissed.