Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1801 (PNJ)

Ajaib Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab

2012-12-11

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.:- The petitioners claim to have purchased the land vide sale deed No. 869 dated 29.10.2003 from Ujagar Singh son of Gurdit Singh for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The land is situated in village Khandoor, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The petitioners produced a sale deed before the Patwari Halqa of the village who entered the mutation at Serial No. 5613 on the basis of sale deed. Objections were raised to the sanction of mutation and the mutation being contested was placed before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade Ludhiana who after recording the evidence of the parties sanctioned the mutation on 04.08.2004. 2. The respondents herein filed an appeal before the Collector, Ludhiana which was allowed and the matter was referred back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for finding out as to who is in possession of the land. On the basis of statement made by Patwari, Assistant Collector Ist Grade came to the conclusion that possession has not been transferred in favour of the petitionersvendee and, accordingly, rejected the mutation which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed on 18.08.2009. Revision petition was dismissed on 08.06.2009. Even the revenue revision before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on 25.01.2011. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the present writ petition. 3. The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioners is that even when the possession has not been transferred the mutation can be sanctioned on the basis of sale deed. In support, he has relied upon Chanan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh, 2005(2) PLR 103. Similar observations have been made in the case Smt. Nirmaljit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2012(1) PLR 462 . 4. Mr. Saggar on the other hand would contest this position and would rely upon various judgments which are referred to in the impugned order to say that this is a case where the possession is with the respondents and the sale deed has been found to be fictitious where no sale consideration was passed. 5. Counsel for the petitioners would contest this fact. The issue whether the mutation is required to be entered even when no possession has not passed only on the basis of sale deed, apparently was not raised before the Financial Commissioner. 5. Counsel for the petitioners would contest this fact. The issue whether the mutation is required to be entered even when no possession has not passed only on the basis of sale deed, apparently was not raised before the Financial Commissioner. It was, therefore, be appropriate to remand this case back to the Financial Commissioner for reconsideration. The parties would be at liberty to rely on any judgment in their support and it would be for the Financial Commissioner to consider and pass any order in accordance with law. 6. The parties through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 31.12.2012. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.