Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Bhagwan vs Commissioner Gurugram Division And ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
CWP-5045-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:031711
133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5045-2024
Date of decision : 04.03.2024
Jai Bhagwan .....Petitioner
versus
Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside/quashing the
order dated 31.08.2023 of learned Commissioner, Gurugram Division
(Annexure P-1) whereby the order dated 13.02.2020 sanctioning the
mutation No.1647 has been set aside as well as the same being in teeth of
the earlier order dated 16.06.2022 whereby the Learned Commissioner,
Gurugram Division had ordered not to enter any mutation into the record
on the basis of the suspicious decree dated 13.08.1996 (Annexure P-6).
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the
grievances emanating from the fact that learned Commissioner after
holding the alleged compromised decree dated 13.08.1996, as suspicious
on account of ex-facie apparent circumstances in the earlier order dated
16.06.2022, has reviewed its own finding in the impugned order dated
31.08.2023. He has submitted that the compromised decree dated
13.08.1996 was passed on the back of the parties without due
authorization and in contravention of Section 17 of The Registration Act,
1908. He has submitted that father of the petitioner vide will dated
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
CWP-5045-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:031711
16.12.1996 devolved all his the immovable and movable properties in
favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, father of the petitioner died on
21.04.1998. Petitioner being the sole executor, instituted a probate
proceedings in Probate Petition No.1 of 2008/2012. He submits that with
the motive to create 3rd party rights in the lis property, Babu Lal son of
Basanta got the above-mentioned suit property in the name of trust run
and operated by Babu Lal by the name of Mata Kaushaliya Devi
Charitable Trust, respondent No.2 vide order dated 08.03.2010. He further
submits that after dismissal thereof, petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Hon'ble High Court by way of filing FAO No.5853 of 2013. He has
submitted that on 26.06.2012, mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the
decree passed in favour of respondent No.2. During the subsistence of the
stay order, compromise dated 11.05.2017 was entered into between the
petitioner and his brother Ram Niwas. Hon'ble Court declined to dispose
of the appeal on the basis of said compromise and another writ petition
No.22433 of 2018 titled as Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana and others
was disposed of with liberty to Ram Niwas to approach the Revenue
Authorities for the necessary relief on 05.09.2018. He has submitted that
the petitioner represented before the Revenue Authorities and sought
mutation in the record based on the mediation report dated 11.05.2017.
Thus, the Mutation No.1647 was sanctioned in support of the land
comprised in Survey Nos.3/2, 4/1, 6, 7, 8/1 of Rectangle Number 21 and
Survey No.24/1. He submits that respondent No.2 filed objections against
the sanctioning of the mutation which were rejected on 13.02.2020. The
appeal was filed by respondent No.2 against the dismissal of his
objections. He submits that meanwhile, in another set of proceedings
where the revenue records of the Village Gopalpur were also under
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
CWP-5045-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:031711
consideration, learned Commissioner came to be apprised by various
illegalities and irregularities in the circumstances leading to the passing of
the decree dated 13.08.1996. Thus, learned Commissioner had ordered
that no mutation be sanctioned until and unless there was clarity regarding
the validity of the decree dated 13.08.1996 passed by the Civil Court.
Taking note of the order passed by the Commissioner, the Collector
Gurugram rejected the appeal vide order dated 21.12.2022. It is submitted
that learned Commissioner in execution revision petition No.58 of 2023
without dealing with the ex-facie suspicious circumstances surrounding
the decree dated 13.08.1996 allowed the said revision and had erroneously
observed correctness of the decree dated 13.08.1996. It is submitted that
the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is against the
evidence on record and thus, being unsustainable in the eyes of law,
deserves to be set aside.
Heard. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the record, it is apparent that the case in hand has a chequered history as
the litigation before the various forums have been pending regarding the
disputed mutation. Respondent No.2 had filed the revision petition against
the order passed by the Collector dated 21.12.2022 vide which the appeal
of respondent No.2 against the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the
Collector, Gurugram was dismissed. Learned Commissioner heard both
the sides and re-appreciated the record of the case. It is found from the
record that Ram Niwas father of respondent No.3 filed a civil suit bearing
No.905 of 1996 wherein he challenged the decree dated 13.08.1996
alleging that as per the family settlement of 1992, land measuring 121
kanals 7 marlas and 32 kanals had come to his share exclusively and thus,
the compromise on the basis of which the judgment dated 13.08.1996
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
CWP-5045-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:031711
passed was illegal and not binding on him. The suit was contested by the
petitioner and his father Basant Lal. Both of them in their written
statement admitted that as per compromise between the parties, a
compromise decree dated 13.08.1996 was passed by the Court of Sh. H.S.
Bhangoo, Additional District Judge, Gurugram and the compromise was
duly signed by Sh. Ram Niwas. The Suit No.905 of 1996 was dismissed
vide judgment dated 17.01.2008. The appeal was filed by Ram Niwas
against this order was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2008. Thereafter,
RSA No.1344 of 2008 filed by Ram Niwas against these judgments was
also dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2016. Thus, the compromise decree
dated 13.08.1996 was upheld. It was mentioned in the compromise that
the parties were related to each other as all the three persons namely, Ram
Niwas, Babu Lal and Jai Bhagwan were the sons of Basant Lal and as per
the family settlement all the joint properties of the parties have been
partitioned. Thus, it was evident from the record that the litigation
between the parties were in progress from the last 30 years. This Court in
FAO No.5853 of 2013 had ordered status quo vide order dated
05.02.2014. Once there was a status quo granted by this Court, the
Revenue Authorities could not have entered the Mutation No.1647 for
transferring the land of respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner. The
petition for granting probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 was filed by the petitioner on 14.06.2008. This probate petition
was dismissed by the Court, thus, learned Commissioner had executed the
revision petition filed by respondent No.2 to maintain the status quo as it
existed on 05.02.2014 as per the order passed by this Court. The Revenue
Authorities rightly directed to proceed further as and when the decision is
taken by this Court in FAO-5853 of 2013.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
CWP-5045-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:031711
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
order passed by this Court in FAO-5853 of 2013, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner.
Resultantly, this petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
04.03.2024 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031711
5 of 5
