Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1583 (PNJ)

Ram Chander Yadav v. State of Haryana

2012-11-06

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The private respondents have purchased 324 Sq.Yards (0K-11M) land from Rectangle No.67, Killa No.16 min situated at Village Parnala, Tehsil Bahadurgarh. As per the petitioner, in the sale deed no dimensions have been mentioned of this area. Tatima has been carved out wrongly and taking benefit thereof, the private respondents have unauthorisedly occupied street and, thus, have occupied 500 Sq.yards area instead of 324 Sq.Yards. The mutation has been sanctioned but it is alleged that Tatima has been wrongly carved out on a wrong place. 2. The petitioner being co-sharer states that no notice has been issued to him while the Municipal Committee has sanctioned the plan. It is alleged that there is a street where Tatima is carved out and this mistake is committed while passing an order dated 15.6.1996. 3. The petitioner has slept over the matter for number of years and has preferred an appeal against the said order, which is set-aside on 26.11.2010. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred an appeal, which is accepted by the Commissioner on 27.4.2012. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner is dismissed on 27.7.2012 and the petitioner has accordingly filed the present petition. 4. In the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has considered the objection, which is now raised by the petitioner. The submission made by the petitioner was noticed by the Financial Commissioner that mutation is sanctioned for area measuring 500 Sq.Yards, whereas the sale deed is in respect of 11 marlas only. On the basis of this wrong mutation, the private respondents had allegedly encroached the path adjacent to the purchased land. It is noticed as a matter of fact that mutation is in respect of a land measuring 11 marlas and this is strictly in accordance with the sale deed. The portion of the land measuring 11 marlas has been clearly depicted on the map indicated on the back of the mutation i.e. Tatima. The calculation given in regard to portion of the land (tatima) leads to measurement of 11 marlas only. The adjoining path is shown as 3 karams, which is 16.5 feet wide. The counsel appearing for the petitioner could not show and substantiate his plea that path as shown is 3 feet. It is shown as 3 karams and dimension in the tatima are given in the karams. The adjoining path is shown as 3 karams, which is 16.5 feet wide. The counsel appearing for the petitioner could not show and substantiate his plea that path as shown is 3 feet. It is shown as 3 karams and dimension in the tatima are given in the karams. One karams measures 5.5 feet and so the width of the path is 3 karams equivalent to 16.5 feet. The Financial Commissioner has accordingly dismissed the revision. 5. The Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Collector, had considered the 14 years delay in passing of the order by the Collector. The Collector had passed the order without condoning the delay. He found the order of the Collector to be bad on mere account of delay, which was not condoned. The mutation No.1529 dated 13.9.1982 was sanctioned on the basis of a sale deed. This mutation has not been challenged till the present proceedings initiated by the petitioner. The Commissioner accordingly find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The sole plea of the petitioner is that tatima was wrongly prepared and consequently the mutation entry was illegal and ultravires. He has referred to the provisions of 4.23 of Punjab Land Records Manual, which lays down a method of preparation of tatima shajra based on permanent changes. What this provision provides is that revenue officer must not sanction the mutation in the absence of proper map. So far as transactions based on registered sale deed are concerned, the revenue officer, on receipt of registration memorandum is required to immediately direct the Kanungo and Patwari to proceed to the spot and prepare tatima shajra, if the same is necessary on the basis of the material given in the registration memorandum. On completion of tatima shajra, it shall be submitted by the Kanungo to the revenue officer. The tatima shajra in this case was prepared and copy thereof is at Annexure P-2. This is clearly shown and depicted on the photostat copy of the original Annexure P-2. How this tatima shajra is wrongly prepared is not explained in any manner. Tatima only means appendix or supplement or a last portion attached to a book or any other thing. At the time of mutation entry, tatima is a supplementary statement prepared by the revenue officer. How this tatima shajra is wrongly prepared is not explained in any manner. Tatima only means appendix or supplement or a last portion attached to a book or any other thing. At the time of mutation entry, tatima is a supplementary statement prepared by the revenue officer. The dictionary of revenue terms defines ‘tatima’ as appendix or supplemental or last portion attached to the book. Tatima Shajra is defined as under:- “Tatima Shajra: If a part of share of a field has been transferred and separate possession has been taken; on the book of mutation sheet and its counterfoil a map of the whole field is drawn and the part transferred is shown as sub-number. In the case of a transaction based upon a registered deed, the revenue officer should immediately on receipt of the registration memorandum from the Registration officer, direct the Kanungo and Patwari to proceed on the spot and prepare a Tatima Shijra on the basis of the material given in the registration memorandum and on the completion of Tatima Shajra it shall be submitted by the Kanungo to the Revenue Officer.” 7. This Court in Rajinder Singh Vs. Mewa Singh, 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 111, has explained the term ‘tatima’ as appendix or supplemental or last portion attached to the book. How the petitioner would describe this tatima prepared at the time of mutation to be wrong, is really not made out. Concededly, the private respondents had purchased land measuring 11 marlas and tatima was prepared for this area only. The submission of the petitioner that tatima is prepared for 500 sq. yards has been negated by the Financial Commissioner on the basis of record, which the counsel for the petitioner could not dispute in any manner. The tatima, as already noticed, is required to be prepared at the spot at the time of carrying out mutation, which has been done in this case. It was prepared in the year 1996. The petitioner has chosen to raise a challenge only in 2010 without explaining the delay. This alone would be enough to decline the prayer. 8. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same.