Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062694
CWP-9939-2024 1 2024:PHHC:062694
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9939-2024
Date of decision : 01.05.2024
Tarsem Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Sarbjit S. Khaira, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
This is the second petition filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Gurdaspur and issuance of direction to the respondents to rectify
mistake in the records of rights in terms of Mutation bearing No.1415 dated
10.01.2022 as mentioned in Jamabandi (Annexure P-6) sanctioned on the basis
of partition order dated 25.08.1970 passed by the learned Tehsildar with the
power of Assistant Collector Grade-I, Gurdaspur, qua the land measuring 11
kanals 02 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.8, Killa No.6(7-12), Rect. No.7,
Killa No.1(1-13) Rect. No.9, Killa No.25/1/1/1(2-5), and 92/1 (0-5) revenue
estate of Village Rure Buttar Hadbast No.518 Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and
allotted to the father of petitioner. Further prayer has been made for directing
respondents No.3 and 4 to take necessary action for delivering the possession of
land (supra) as per sanction of mutation bearing No.1415 dated 10.01.2022 as
mentioned in Jamabandi (Annexure P-6).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that father of the
petitioner along with co-sharers is the owner in possession of the land bearing
11 kanals 02 marlas out of total land measuring 142 kanals 15 marlas. He has
submitted that father of the petitioner got partitioned the abovesaid land vide
order dated 25.08.1970 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur.
He submits that in terms of the partition order dated 25.08.1970, the mutation
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062694
CWP-9939-2024 2 2024:PHHC:062694
bearing No.816 dated 23.10.1974 was sanctioned in the name of father of the
petitioner as per his share. He has submitted that the petitioner was residing
along with his family as earlier he was doing service in Railway Department
and the co-sharers hatched a conspiracy and got deleted the name of father of
the petitioner from the revenue record in connivance with the Revenue
Authority. He has further submitted that it came to the knowledge of the
petitioner and he filed suit for declaration which was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 13.02.2019. He submits that thereafter, petitioner repeatedly
approached the respondents-authorities to rectify the mistake in the record in
terms of the mutation but no action was taken in the same. He has submitted
that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any order, direction or
observation on the order passed by the Revenue Court. He submits that once the
partition proceedings dated 25.08.1970 had attained finality, the aggrieved co-
sharers had remedy to file appeal but none of the co-sharers filed any appeal
against that order. It is submitted that after sanctioning of the mutation, no co-
sharer had made any effort to get enteries recorded in the name of the petitioner
corrected by filing a regular civil suit as per the requirement of Section 45 of the
Punjab Land Revenue Act. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be discarded
merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises or any observation made by the
Civil Court. He has submitted that the petitioner earlier filed CWP No.26567-
2022 and CWP-12422-2023. He submits that respondent No.3 in compliance of
order dated 21.11.2022 and 06.07.2023 passed the order dated 31.07.2023. It is
submitted that though again mutation was sanctioned in petitioner's favour vide
Mutation No.14 dated 10.01.2022, however, the possession of the said land was
never delivered to the petitioner. He submits that there was a delay and in 1997
his name was deleted. He further submits that the partition of 1970 is still in
force which has not been nullified till date. He submits that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, direction deserves to be issued to the respondents for
rectifying the record.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062694
CWP-9939-2024 3 2024:PHHC:062694
Heard. On hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, it is apparent that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in
CWP No.12422 of 2023 dated 06.07.2023, learned Deputy Commissioner,
Gurdaspur has already passed a speaking order dated 31.07.2023. It has been
observed that the mutation in pursuance to order passed by the Civil Court has
already been sanctioned as per the share of the petitioner. However, the
petitioner is required to file partition application/suit and get the possession of
the land which had fallen to his share. Thus, it is evident that in pursuance to the
order passed by this Court, a speaking order has already been passed. Petitioner
has raised disputed question of facts and the same deciphered from the speaking
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 31.07.2023.
There is no gainsaying that entertaining the petition involving the
disputed question of facts is beyond the jurisdiction of the Writ Court. Even
otherwise, once the Deputy Commissioner has already passed a speaking order,
the petitioner has a fresh cause of action and he is at liberty to avail the remedy
against the same which he has not availed. Thus, on both the counts, this Court
is of the opinion that the present petition is not maintainable and hence, the
same is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner would be at liberty to avail his remedies for the redressal of his
grievances as available to him under the law.
01.05.2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m. sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
