JUDGMENT Petitioner claims that he purchased a piece of land measuring 5 ½ Marlas falling under Khasra no.497, Khewat no.15, Khata no.141, situated at Barnai Bantalab Tehsil and District Jammu, from one, Mohinder Singh son of Vachiter Singh resident of Kool Kalal Kamia Tehsil Bishnah District Jammu, vide Sale Deed dated 10th June 2014, which was duly registered by Sub Registrar, on 9th July 2014, and on the basis of Sale Deed he was inducted into possession of the land. He also avers that mutation was effected on 31st July 2014, in favour of petitioner vide Mutation Order no.1345. Petitioners claims that he constructed two rooms, kitchen and bathroom on the aforesaid land. Petitioner maintains that necessity arose for him for sale of aforesaid land and accordingly, he approached respondent no.3 for issuance of ‘Fard Intikhab Jamabandi’. However, its issuance was declined in view of investigation in case FIR no.23/2014 of police station Crime Branch, Jammu. Petitioner contends that FIR was registered on 2nd December 2014 against Women Selection Grade Constable Nirmal Kour no.211/IR-15th Bn (wife of Mohinder Singh) and aforesaid seller, Mohinder Singh, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B. According to petitioner, aforesaid land owned by him has nothing to do with abovementioned FIR, but respondent no.2 vide letter no.CBJ/FIR- 23/14/21078 dated 21st December 2015, asked respondent no.3 not to allow alienation of aforesaid land till further communication from respondent no.2 and to this effect entry be also made in revenue records. It is stated in writ petition that respondent no.2 has no authority to create any restriction on the sale of aforesaid land and therefore communication dated 21st December 2015 is bad in law. It is on the basis of case set up that petitioner seeks quashment of communication dated 21st December 2015, addressed by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 in respect of the aforesaid land of petitioner. Petitioner also beseeches a direction to respondent no.2 to issue Fard Intikhab Jamabandi in respect of land of petitioner measuring 5 ½ Marlas situated at Barnai Bantalab, Jammu. 2. Given the case set up and reliefs implored for by petitioner, a Bench of this Court on 30th August 2017, issued, in the first instance, notice to respondent no.2 for his Response, in particular, on the point as to how land in question was involved in case FIR no.23/2014 of police station Crime Branch Jammu. 3. 2. Given the case set up and reliefs implored for by petitioner, a Bench of this Court on 30th August 2017, issued, in the first instance, notice to respondent no.2 for his Response, in particular, on the point as to how land in question was involved in case FIR no.23/2014 of police station Crime Branch Jammu. 3. Respondent no.2 submitted the Response/Status Report on 14th November 2017. In his Status Report, respondent no.2 has stated that an enquiry report, forwarded by Commandant, IRP 15th Bn. Jammu, through Inspector General of Police, Armed/IRP, Jammu Zone, Jammu, was received in Crime Branch, Jammu, which reveals that written complaints were filed by Women Constable, Veena Devi no.533/lRP 15th Battalion, and Women Constable Sabeena Akhter no.544/lRP, 15th Battalion, to the effect that Women Selection Grade Constable Nirmal Kour no.211/lRP 15th Battalion had taken a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rs.1.00 lakh each) from them fraudulently on the pretext that she would repay an interest of Rs. 5000/- per month, but neither such interest nor was principle amount paid and thus accused had cheated them and misappropriated their money. Upon receiving the complaint, a discreet enquiry was conducted, in which it was found that Nirmal Kour in connivance with her husband, Mohinder Singh, had collected a huge amount of cash and gold, not only from complainants but from other women officials of 15th Battalion and securing wing, illegally after alluring them high rate of interest and gold loan facilities, but had deposited the cash with some finance company and gold with Manapuraam Bank, Satwari, Jammu, for their personal use, thereby cheated and duped fellow officials and misappropriate the collected amount of Rs.1.50 Crores and gold, about 300 grams approximately. These omissions and commissions, according to respondent, constitute offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 120-B RPC and resultantly case FIR no.23/2014 was registered in police station Crime Branch Jammu, on 2nd December 2014 and investigation taken up. 4. It is also averred in the Status Report that during course of investigation, complainants and some other investors, who had been duped by accused persons of their hard-earned money, were examined and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. 4. It is also averred in the Status Report that during course of investigation, complainants and some other investors, who had been duped by accused persons of their hard-earned money, were examined and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It is also maintained that during course of investigation, it was also found that in the year 2012, one Chamial Singh son of Punjab Singh resident of Chak Tara Tehsil R. S. Pura, had executed a General Power of Attorney in respect of 09 Kanals 09 Marlas of Land falling under Khasra no.504, situated at Chak Tara, in favour of aforesaid Mohinder Singh. An agreement was also executed by Mohinder Singh and his wife, Nirmal Kour, on 1st July 2014, in which it was mentioned that they borrowed an amount of Rs.33.00 Lacs from one Satpal Singh son of Raj Singh resident of Kool Kalan, Bishnah, which would be repaid by them with interest to Satpal Singh within a period of one year in installments and in case they fail to repay borrowed amount within one year, the above Satpal would be at liberty to dispose- off their above 09 Kanals 09 Marlas of land. During investigation, it is also reported, it also came to surface that in the eyar 2011 Sampuran Singh son of Dharam singh resident of Kool Kalan Bishnah executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of land measuring 11 Marlas falling under Khasra nos.29 & 30 situated at Kool Kalan, in favour of Mohinder Singh son of Vichiter Singh, mentioning therein that he has received Rs.2.50 Lacs from Mohinder Singh. However, the said Mohinder singh in the year 2014 executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of aforesaid 11 Marlas of land in favour of Asha Ram Saini son of Dhian Singh resident of Kool Kalan, selling the said land to vendee for consideration of Rs.2.00 Lacs. It was also learned that in the year 2013 SGCT Mohinder Singh purchased a house constructed on 04 Kanals of land situated at Makhanpur Gujran, R.S.Pura, from one Ranjit Singh son of Bhagwan Singh resident of Makhanpur, Gujran, for a consideration of Rs.6.00 Lacs through an agreement to sell attested by JMIC, R. S. Pura. It is stated that concerned Revenue Authorities were asked not to allow alleged accused persons to alienate their immovable properties. 5. It is stated that concerned Revenue Authorities were asked not to allow alleged accused persons to alienate their immovable properties. 5. It is also stated in Status Report that it was also found during investigation that SGCT Mohinder Singh has purchased land measuring 5 ½ Marlas under Khasra no.497 min situated at Barnai, Jammu, from one, Kiran Bala daughter of Hans Raj resident of Barnai, Bantalab, Jammu, in the year 2012 and sale deed had been executed in favour of alleged accused, Mohinder Singh, for sale consideration of Rs.3.85 Lacs, which was also mutated in his favour. The matter was taken up with Tehsildar North, Jammu, asking him not to allow alienation of the above landed property till further communication from Investigating Agency. Respondents maintain that when accused, Mohinder Singh, became aware about initiation of enquiry, he sold aforesaid piece of land to one, Tanveer Malik (petitioner herein) for Rs.4,68,875/-. The statement of witnesses was recorded under Section 161 and 164-A Cr.P.C. Besides, the amount collected by accused, Nirmal Kour and Mohinder Singh, from depositors by way of cheating and fraud, is required to be recovered from them, for which all efforts are being made by respondent and that the investigation of the case is in progress. Thereafter, again on 8th August 2019 respondent no.2 filed Status Report reiterating the averments made in earlier Status Report and nothing new emerges therefrom. 6. Respondents 1&3 (Revenue Department) have filed their objections, asserting therein that FIR no.23/2014 police Station Crime Branch, Jammu, has been lodged against Nirmal Kour and Mohinder Singh, who have sold the land to petitioner. Respondents have made reference of communication no.CBJ/FIR-23/14/21078 dated 21st December 2015, in which they were asked not to allow alienation of land measuring 5 ½ Marlas falling under Khasra no.497 min situated at Barnai, Jammu, and make necessary entry in this regard in revenue records. Respondents 1&3 maintain in their Reply that petitioner was in possession of land in question, mutated in his favour, prior to filing of complaint against seller/vendor and, therefore, petitioner had purchased the land in question legally and was holding its possession peacefully. However, in view of communication dated 21st December 2015, received from Zonal Headquarters, Crime Branch, Jammu, issuance of revenue papers (Fard) has been withheld as respondents have no option but to withhold issuance of revenue paper in order to carry out the directions received from Crime Branch. However, in view of communication dated 21st December 2015, received from Zonal Headquarters, Crime Branch, Jammu, issuance of revenue papers (Fard) has been withheld as respondents have no option but to withhold issuance of revenue paper in order to carry out the directions received from Crime Branch. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 8. Petitioner has purchased land in question by way of a Sale Deed. The said Sale Deed has been registered by registering authority, viz. Sub Registrar, Jammu, on 9th July 2014. Registration of a document, in the present case is a Sale Deed, is a final seal to a document to be implemented and carried in revenue records. From the file as also from the Reply, filed by respondents 1&3, it is evident that mutation has been effected in compliance of registration of aforesaid Sale Deed and necessary entries have been made in revenue records by Revenue Department. Neither Sale Deed nor is Mutation under challenge before any court of law and therefore, the same has attained finality. 9. In addition to this, perusal of Reply reveals that respondents 1&3 have categorically stated that petitioner was in possession of land in question, mutated in his favour, prior to filing of complaint(s) against seller/ vendor and that petitioner has purchased the land in question legally and was holding its possession peacefully. Once that being the position, issuance of impugned direction contained in communication dated 21st December 2015, amounts to infringement of constitutional and statutory rights of petitioner. He has purchased the land in question by way of a valid document. Preventing him from enjoying the property amounts to infringement of his constitutional rights as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and a human right as well. Petitioner has every right to obtain revenue excerpts with respect to his aforesaid landed property as also to alienate it in accordance with laws and rules regulating the field. 10. It is well settled that right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as well. In view of mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property except by the authority of law. 10. It is well settled that right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as well. In view of mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property except by the authority of law. [See: Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others (2008) 4 SCC 649 ; and judgement dated 7th August 2020 rendered in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 631]. 11. Article 300A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises of two parts: (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. As having been held by the Supreme Court in a cannon of decisions, including State of Bihar and Others v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Others (2006) 2 SCC 545 , 574; Jelubhai Nanbhai Khachar and others v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (1995) Suppl. 1 SCC 596 Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1982) 1 SCC 39 , that the State possesses the power to take or control property of owner for benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as held by the Supreme Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2007) 7 SCC 555 . 12. The right to property, includes any proprietary interest, hereditary interest, as well as anything acquired by inheritance. However, laudable be the purpose, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property without specific legal authority, which can be established in a court of law. The High Courts, exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a Statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. 13. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Directors of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and others v. M.R. Apparao and another, (2002) 4 SCC 638, it has been observed: “One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, “Mandamus” means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.” 14. From the above quoted passage, it is deducible that the High Court is duty bound to issue a writ of Mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law.” 14. From the above quoted passage, it is deducible that the High Court is duty bound to issue a writ of Mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of Mandamus is that Mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty. This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through Mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, Mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same. While saying so, it has also been held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Reference may be made inter alia to the judgments of this Court Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769 ; and State of Kerala v. M.K. Jose, (2015) 9 SCC 433 . 15. As ingeminated herein before, petitioner, in the present case as has also been admitted by respondents 1&3, has in a legal and proper way purchased land in question. The said land is neither required for public purpose nor it has links with any activity that would attract preclusion of petitioner’s legal and lawful rights to enjoy it. Even alleged offences, embodied in aforementioned case FIR, do not show any nexus or connection of the land in question with the commission of offences made mention of or alleged therein. In that view of matter, preventing petitioner of his constitutional right to enjoy the land in question, is illegal and unlawful. 16. For all that has been discoursed above, writ petition is disposed of and as a corollary thereof communication no. CBJ/FIR/23/14/21078 dated 21st December 2015, addressed by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3, is quashed. In that view of matter, preventing petitioner of his constitutional right to enjoy the land in question, is illegal and unlawful. 16. For all that has been discoursed above, writ petition is disposed of and as a corollary thereof communication no. CBJ/FIR/23/14/21078 dated 21st December 2015, addressed by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3, is quashed. Respondent no.2 to issue revenue record (Fard Intikhabi Jamabandi) in respect of land measuring 5 ½ Marlas falling under Khasra No.497, Khewat No.15, Khata no.141, situated at Barnai Bantalab, Jammu, in favour of petitioner, in accordance with laws and rules governing the field.