JUDGMENT : 1. An order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner with powers of Financial Commissioner, Revenue [‘FC] in a revision petition titled ‘Som Dutt vs Sansar Chand is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2. Before I take up the grounds of challenge urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, a brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to filing of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be desirable. 3. Land in dispute in this case measures 2 kanals and falls in khasra No. 609 min [‘the subject land’]. The Subject land is classified as ‘Gair Mumkin Khud’situate in village Dasgal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu and forms part of shamilat deh. As per the entries made in Jamabandi of 19571958, the subject land is recorded in the possession of the owners of the village as ‘maqbooja malkaan’. The claim of the petitioner, as is projected by him throughout, is that the subject land was purchased by him from one Puran Chand son of KunjLal with possession through a registered Sale Deed dated 07.02.1994 and, accordingly, mutation No. 856 was attested in his favour on 28.11.2001.The petitioner further claims that out of the subject land purchased by him, 2 marlas of land was sold by him to one Anita Sharma wife of Romesh Chander on 14.08.2008 again through a duly registered sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in peaceful possession of the subject land and in the year 2010, the respondent appeared on the scene and challenged the sale deed executed by aforesaid Puran Chand in favour of the petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff, Akhnoor. He submits that initially the Court of learned Munsiff granted an order of status quo, but the same was vacated by the Additional District Judge, Jammu on an appeal preferred by the petitioner. 4. The respondent had sought a decree of declaration from the learned Munsiff to declare the sale deed dated 07.02.1994 as null and void and had placed reliance upon an Agreement to Sell executed by Purcan Chand on 18.12.1993 in favour of the petitioner and the respondent in respect of 01 kanal each of the subject land. 4. The respondent had sought a decree of declaration from the learned Munsiff to declare the sale deed dated 07.02.1994 as null and void and had placed reliance upon an Agreement to Sell executed by Purcan Chand on 18.12.1993 in favour of the petitioner and the respondent in respect of 01 kanal each of the subject land. This led to the petitioner also filing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to throw challenge to the Agreement to sell dated 18.12.1993 relied upon by the respondent. This suit is pending adjudication in the Court of City Judge, Jammu. This Court was further told that both the suits are now consolidated and are at final stage in the Court of City Judge, Jammu. It seems that simultaneously with launching of civil litigation by the parties, an appeal was also filed by the respondent against mutation No.856 dated 28.11.2001 attested on the basis of sale deed executed by Puran Chand in favour of the petitioner. 5. The aforesaid appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer who vide his order dated 27.05.2011 allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned mutation and remanded the case to Tehsildar concerned for de novo enquiry and passing fresh orders in presence of the parties. This order of Settlement Officer was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Joint Settlement Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which came to be transferred to the Joint Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The said revision petition was considered by the FC who vide order impugned dated 26.04.2018 dismissed the revision petition, thus, upholding the order of Settlement Officer remanding the matter to the Tehsildar concerned for de novo enquiry. 6. In the backdrop of facts narrated above, order dated 26.04.2018 is called in question by the petitioner in this petition. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that a mutation attested on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed cannot be interfered with, that too, at the instance of a stranger unless the same is set aside by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that a mutation attested on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed cannot be interfered with, that too, at the instance of a stranger unless the same is set aside by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It is argued that the suit for declaration challenging the sale deed filed by the respondent in the Court of learned Munsiff, Akhnoon is pending adjudication and so long as the sale deed is intact and is not set aside by the civil Court, the same is a valid proof of title. The mutation, it is argued, is only a fiscal entry made in the revenue record and does not affect a change in rights qua the land. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground that the Revenue Authorities below have given undue and unnecessary importance to an agreement to sell which, in terms of Section 54 and Section 138(4)of the Transfer of Property Act does not hold any legal sanctity. It is, thus, argued that in the face of a valid sale deed duly registered before the Registering Authority, the mutation attested on the basis thereof could not have been set aside by the Settlement Officer. It is submitted that the Settlement Commissioner as also the FC committed the same illegality in confirming the order of Settlement officer. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Dogra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that the mutation attested on the basis of the sale deed has been set aside by the Settlement Officer on the ground that no such mutation could be attested unless the sale is followed by delivery of possession. He places reliance upon Rule 46 of Standing Order 23-A to bolster his contention. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the Financial Commissioner is not sustainable in law. 9. Indisputably, the subject land has been purchased by the petitioner from one Purand Chand through a registered sale deed dated 07.02.1994. The recitals of the sale deed clearly indicate that the possession of the subject land was simultaneously handed over to the petitioner. This sale deed is also a subject matter of challenge in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent before the civil Court. The recitals of the sale deed clearly indicate that the possession of the subject land was simultaneously handed over to the petitioner. This sale deed is also a subject matter of challenge in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondent before the civil Court. The matter is sub judice and the civil Court is yet to pronounce upon the legal validity of the sale deed or otherwise. So long as the sale deed dated 07.02.1994 remains intact and is not set aside by a decree of civil Court of competent jurisdiction, it shall be a valid proof of title to the property. 10. It is true that, in terms of Rule 46 of Standing Order 23-A, a mutation in a case of transfer of right by way of sale, can be attested by a competent Revenue Officer only if it is found that, along with the transfer of right by way of sale, there is change in possession also effected. In other words, the Revenue officer shall reject the mutation sought to be attested on the basis of sale deed if he finds that possession has not changed. For the purpose of reference, Rule 46 of Standing Order 23-A is set out below: “46. Consider both possession and right, in cases of succession to a right: In deciding mutation cases, arising out of succession to a right, officers should look to two principal factors, first possession, and second right. Both should be considered and orders about the entry to be made, passed, the true facts regarding possession being however shown in Kasht column. In cases of transfer, mutation may be ordered only on basis of possession: In case of transfer of a right, however, it is necessary to state in the order passed on the mutation, whether possession has actually been transferred on the spot. In cases of sale, mortgage, redemption of mortgage, gift, private partition, ejectment or relinquishment of Kasht by tenants, if it is found that possession has not changed, the mutation should be rejected irrespective of the fact that the parties agree to transfer possession at some future time”. 11. It seems that at the time of attestation of impugned mutation on the basis of sale deed, no objection was raised by anybody including the respondent that the petitioner was not in possession of the subject land. 11. It seems that at the time of attestation of impugned mutation on the basis of sale deed, no objection was raised by anybody including the respondent that the petitioner was not in possession of the subject land. Otherwise also, the issue as to possession of the subject land is also subject matter of adjudication before the civil Courts hearing two civil suits, one filed by the petitioner and the other by the respondent. There is nothing on record to presume that on the date of attestation of mutation in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was not in possession of the subject land and, therefore, mutation ought not to have been attested. 12. There is another aspect, which is equally significant and, thus, cannot be ignored by this Court. Indisputably, the respondent is claiming possession over half of the subject land on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 18.12.1993 executed by Puran Chand in favour of respondent and the petitioner agreeing to sell 01 kanal each to both. The agreement to sell, as is evident from its recital, was to be followed by execution of a proper sale deed. 13. Admittedly, no sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of 01 kanal of land, subject matter of agreement to sell dated 18.12.1993, has been executed, nor has the respondent taken any step seeking specific performance of contract by filing a civil suit before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The agreement to sell, as it is, does not confer any right on the respondent to hold the subject land in question. Viewed thus, the respondent does not seem to have any locus to challenge the mutation. If at all, respondent No.1 is occupying half of the subject land, it is without any title to hold such land. The law would look at such person as an ‘unauthorized occupant’. On the other hand, the petitioner holds a valid sale deed and a mutation attested on the basis thereof in his favour. In such circumstances, it was not just and proper for the Revenue Courts to set aside the mutation only on the ground that there was no proper enquiry as to the possession conducted by the Revenue Officers. On the other hand, the petitioner holds a valid sale deed and a mutation attested on the basis thereof in his favour. In such circumstances, it was not just and proper for the Revenue Courts to set aside the mutation only on the ground that there was no proper enquiry as to the possession conducted by the Revenue Officers. The recitals in the Sale Deed indicating that possession was simultaneously delivered with the execution of the sale deed; the factum of possession of the petitioner recorded by the Revenue officers attesting the mutation; and the fact that the vendor did not dispute delivery of possession of land sold would give rise to a strong presumption in law that simultaneously with the execution of the sale deed, the vendor had transferred the possession also and that the mutation was attested by the Revenue Officer concerned only after being satisfied that the change of right by virtue of sale deed was accompanied by a change in the possession from vendor to vendee. The position could have been different, had the vendor disputed the delivery of possession to the vendee simultaneously with the execution of the sale deed or the person other than vendor and vendee would have claimed to be in possession of subject land. The respondent who, till the matter is adjudicated upon by the civil Court, is a stranger, cannot be is said to have locus to call in question the mutation attested way back in the year 1994 on the ground that on the date of attestation of the mutation, the possession of entire land was not delivered by the vendor to the vendee i.e the petitioner herein. 14. Before I close, I deem it appropriate to reiterate the legal position which has been set at rest by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court in umpteen judgments. It is now trite law that the mutation entries are only fiscal in nature and do not confer any title in the property. These entries are always subject to a decree of the civil court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mugli Begum and others vs. Financial Commissioner and others 2022 Livelaw (J&K) 2004 may be cited with advantage. 15. These entries are always subject to a decree of the civil court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mugli Begum and others vs. Financial Commissioner and others 2022 Livelaw (J&K) 2004 may be cited with advantage. 15. That apart, Section 26 of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996 supports the proposition that the final order passed by the Revenue Officer declaring who is the party best entitled to the property is subject to any decree or order which may be subsequently passed by any civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 16. As is noticed hereinabove, the parties are litigating before the civil Courts where, apart from validity of sale deed relied upon by the petitioner and the agreement to sell relied upon by the respondent, an issue with regard to the possession, is also subject matter of adjudication. During the course of arguments, it was brought to my notice that the evidence in the suits which are now consolidated and are being tried together is over and the matter is set down for arguments. Be that as it may, the mutation attested in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a registered sale deed can not be set aside till a decree to the contrary pronouncing upon the validity of the sale deed and the factum of possession is passed by the civil Court. The Revenue Officers, right from Settlement Officer to the Financial Commissioner were not correct in coming to a conclusion that the mutation attested on the basis of sale deed without ascertaining the factum of possession of the petitioner on the purchased land was not sustainable in law. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I find merit in this petition. The order impugned passed by the Financial Commissioner is quashed and, as a consequence thereof, orders passed by the Settlement Officer and the Settlement Commissioner shall also cease to exist and are hereby quashed. The mutation attested in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed is upheld and shall only be subject to a decree that may be passed by the civil Court in the civil litigation launched by both the parties before the civil Courts.