ORDER 1. These two revision petitions have been filed against order dated 27-11-13 of the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, rejecting the revision petitions against order dated 19-03-13 of Collector, Bathinda, whereby he had rejected the appeal against the order dated 21-08-12 of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Talwandi Sabo. Since the facts of both the cases are the same, they shall be disposed of by this single order; a copy thereof be placed on each file. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mutation No. 21788 of village Mour Kalan and Mutation No. 9749 of village Ramnagar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District. Bathinda, were entered in the name of Pritam Singh (predecessor in interest of present respondent No. 1-2) and SGPC on the basis of order dated 9-8-11 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5702 of 2005, by the Halqa Patwari and presented to Circle Revenue Officer, where present petitioner raised objection. Mutation being contested was, therefore, referred to Assistant Collector Grade-I (SDM) who after hearing both the parties sanctioned the mutations in terms of Supreme Court order in favour of Pritam Singh and SGPC, vide his order dated 21-8-12 Against this order petitioner filed two separate appeals before District Collector, Bathinda, mainly on the grounds that the land in dispute is in possession of Gurudwara Sahib Patshahi Nauvi, which was earlier managed by Mahant Pritam Singh, however after filing of a murder case against him, a 51-member Committee was constituted which is headed Gurcharan Singh as President and since 2006 the land in dispute is managed by the Committee; further that the committee was not party in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Committee has filed a civil suit before Additional Civil Judge Talwandi Sabo, which has ordered stay of possession by an interim order on 31-7-12. The Collector, however, dismissed both the appeals with the observations that these mutations have been correctly sanctioned on the basis of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, and possession has been correctly reflected in the mutation sheet. Revision petitions filed by petitioners before Commissioner were dismissed on 27-11-13, leading to the present revisions. 3. Counsel for petitioner was heard. He has argued that the impugned order is bad because it fails to adjudicate on the legal issues raised by him. Revision petitions filed by petitioners before Commissioner were dismissed on 27-11-13, leading to the present revisions. 3. Counsel for petitioner was heard. He has argued that the impugned order is bad because it fails to adjudicate on the legal issues raised by him. These are, first, that the impugned mutation could not have been sanctioned on the basis of an order of the Supreme Court so as to affect his rights because he was never a party to those proceedings. That order is based on a compromise agreement between respondent SGPC and other respondents (sons of Late Mahant Pritam Singh), and cannot, therefore, affect petitioner’s rights in any manner. Secondly, that SGPC was never the owner or manager of the land in question and could not, therefore, enter into any compromise or transaction pertaining to this land. To substantiate his claim, counsel has referred to the ownership entries in jamabandi reflected in column No. 4 of the mutation sheets. Third, that petitioner was in physical possession of this land, and had obtained a stay order from Civil Court, Talwandi Sabo dated 3-7-12 in Civil Suit No. 603 instituted on 29-9-11, and the revenue record must reflect the correct facts as regards possession. Fourth, that during pendency of a civil suit pertaining to title, a Revenue Officer is to keep mutation proceedings pending or adjourned. Fifth, that a mutation of sale (transfer of title) cannot be sanctioned unless possession has passed to the transferee. On this issue counsel has cited 2007 (4) PLR 638 titled Jagtar Singh v. State and others, wherein a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held:- “we are of the considered opinion that as the matter has already been pending before the civil court, wherein the validity of the wills are under challenge, therefore, the sanctioning of the mutation be kept in abeyance. It is further ordered that the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall not alienate the suit property involved in inheritance. The civil court shall decide the matter expeditiously.” Counsel also cited the Financial Commissioner’s decision reported as 1996 PLJ 448 which quotes Para 7.17 of the Punjab Land Records Manual as follows:- “Mutation of land by sale, mortgage or gift can be sanctioned if delivery of possession is proved alongwith sale, mortgage or gift.” 4. I have examined the petition and record on file. I have examined the petition and record on file. The impugned order implements a decision of the Supreme Court regarding change of ownership of land belonging to a Gurudwara. The SGPC which claimed ownership of this historic Gurudwara had executed a compromise with Mahant Pritam Singh which was accepted and decreed by the Supreme Court. It is a settled principle of the Revenue Law that when sanctioning a mutation the Revenue Officer must comply with a decision of the civil court of competent jurisdiction regarding the subject land. As regards the petitioner’s first objection that they were not a party to the Supreme Court case, it is admitted that petitioner only claims possession of land and not its title or ownership. As regards the petitioner’s second and third objections regarding possession of the land, and the suit filed in this regard, the columns No. 5 and 10 of the mutation sheets reflect the possession of the petitioner. In fact this is one of the grounds taken up by petitioner in civil suit. The fourth issue concerns whether Revenue Officer should sanction a mutation when the parties have approached the civil court. In this regard the settled law is that mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not grant any title. The primary objective is to amend the revenue record in accordance with the facts, as held by the High Court in Harjit Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1196 (DB)] : 2007 (2) LAR 208. Further, a Revenue Officer cannot keep mutation proceedings pending in the absence of any direction by a civil court, as held by the High Court in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007 (2) LAR 101. On all these grounds, I find that the impugned orders are unobjectionable. Hence the petitions are dismissed in limine. Announced. —————————