JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Bhagwan Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh-respondent No.4 (vendor) was the recorded owner of the land in dispute. She alienated the same to Mukand Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Kartar Singhrespondent Nos.5 & 6 (vendees), for a total consideration of Rs.15,20,000/-, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 1.12.2008. After purchasing the land, the vendees reported their acquisition of right to the revenue authorities. Since petitioner Jagsir Singh had raised certain objections, so, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (for brevity “the A.C.2nd Grade”) referred the matter (disputed mutation) and the A.C.1st Grade (respondent No.3) sanctioned the mutation in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, on the basis of registered sale deed, by way of impugned order dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P1), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the District Collector (respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure P2). 3. Sequelly, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders (Annexues P1 & P2) was dismissed as well, by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division (respondent No.1), vide impugned order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure P3). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has filed civil suit (Annexure P4) against respondent Nos.4 to 6, so, the AC 1st Grade, District Collector and Commissioner committed a legal mistake in sanctioning the mutation on the basis of indicated registered sale deed, lacks merit. 7. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that Bhagwan Kaur (respondent No.4) was the recorded owner and she sold the land in litigation to respondent Nos.5 and 6 for a valuable consideration of Rs.15,20,000/-, by means of registered sale deed dated 1.12.2008. 7. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that Bhagwan Kaur (respondent No.4) was the recorded owner and she sold the land in litigation to respondent Nos.5 and 6 for a valuable consideration of Rs.15,20,000/-, by means of registered sale deed dated 1.12.2008. Having purchased the land, the vendees reported the matter of their acquisition of land in dispute to revenue authorities, as contemplated under section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). In the wake of objections raised by the petitioner, the AC 2nd Grade referred the case (contested mutation) to the AC 1st Grade, as envisaged under section 35 of the Act. 8. Taking into consideration the factum of registered sale deed for valuable consideration, the AC 1st Grade has rightly sanctioned the mutation, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P1). This order was upheld by the District Collector, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P2). 9. Not only that, the orders (Annexures P1 & P2) were further confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, by way of impugned order (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is (para 4) as under:- “4. I have heard both the counsels and have also gone through the record of the lower courts. In this case the mutation in question has been entered and sanctioned on the basis of registered sale deed dated 01.12.2008 executed by one Bhagwan Kaur in favour of present respondents. The petitioner is emphasizing on the point that the sale deed in question is a forged document as the executant of the sale deed had no right to execute the sale deed in question because she was not absolute owner of the property in question and the petitioner is in possession of the suit land. I am not in agreement with the contentions of the petitioner as the perusal of record shows that the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of sale deed dated 01.12.2008 which is a registered document and a revenue officer is duty bound to implement the registered documents in revenue record if he is satisfied about its genuineness. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it has to be sanctioned in favour of a person for updation of revenue record which is legal necessarily. The mutation proceedings are summary in nature and it has to be sanctioned in favour of a person for updation of revenue record which is legal necessarily. The assertion of the petitioner that Bhagwan Kaur was not competent to execute the sale deed in question as she was not absolute owner of the suit land, is an intricate question of law which can only be decided by the competent civil Court and not by the revenue officer. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by lower revenue authorities. Thus the revision filed has no merits and the same is hereby rejected.” 10. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner did not deny the execution and consideration amount of sale deed in question, but he claimed that vendor Bhagwan Kaur was not competent to alienate the land in dispute. Such intricate questions can only be decided by the civil Court and not otherwise by the revenue officers. 11. At the same time, the learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P3) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned orders. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of final adjudication of civil litigation between the parties, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 15. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of final adjudication of civil litigation between the parties, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 15. Be that as it may, however, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the subsequent civil proceedings, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present writ petition in mutation matter only. 16. Needless to mention here that sanction of mutation would naturally be subject to the ultimate decision of the civil court. --------------