Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurlal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 1 May, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062698
CWP-9944-2024 1 2024:PHHC:062698
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9944-2024
Date of decision : 01.05.2024
Gurlal Singh and another .....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated
28.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2 (Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Government of Punjab), setting aside the orders
dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 (Assistant
Collector First Grade, Jaitu) and further order dated 27.01.2021
(Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 (Additional Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Collector, Faridkot) vide which the said respondents
had approved the mutation/intkal of the land exchanged between the
petitioners and respondent No.9 on the basis of a writ exchange deed
dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-8), inter alia, on the grounds that (i) the
aforesaid mutation/intkal was sanctioned by respondents No.3 and 4, on
the basis of exchange deed dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-8) in a legal
manner; and (ii) respondents No.5 to 8 were objecting to the sanction of
intkal of the aforesaid land on the basis of exchange deed (Annexure P-8)
(supra) on the ground that they had entered into some agreements of sale
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062698
CWP-9944-2024 2 2024:PHHC:062698
of the same land (which was subject matter of the exchange deed), and
that they had the prior to purchase the said land, which is not permissible
under law, as an agreement to sell or a written sale deed (without
registration) does not confer any title to the prospective transferee of such
land; and (iii) the interim orders dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure P-4) and
05.03.2020 (Annexure P-5) and 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by the
concerned Civil Court, on applications filed for seeking interim injunction
only restrained the petitioners from effecting any further alienation of the
land in question and did not restrain the sanctioning of mutation/intkal of
the land exchanged between the petitioners and respondent No.9; and (iv)
for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-7)
passed by respondent No.2-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab is
patently illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside and quashed in
the interest of justice, and the orders dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P-1) and
27.01.2021 (Annexure P-2) are liable to be restored and maintained.
Further prayer has been made for restraining the operation of the order
dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2-Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab in a Revision Petition No.ROR-158-
2021 titled as Jaswinder Kaur and others Vs. Davinder Singh and others
during the pendency of the instant Civil Writ Petition.
2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that
respondent No.9 exchanged the land situated in Village Ukandwala with
the present petitioners on 02.12.2019. He submits that in the civil suit
filed by respondents No.5 to 8 for the specific performance, the Civil
Court issued the interim injunction restraining the petitioners from
transferring the suit land vide its order dated 29.02.2020. It is submitted
that respondent No.4-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jaito vide his order
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062698
CWP-9944-2024 3 2024:PHHC:062698
dated 18.03.2020 sanctioned the mutation of the aforesaid land by
rejecting the objections raised by respondents No.5 to 8. Thereafter, the
Collector, Faridkot dismissed the objection raised by respondents No.5 to
8 vide order dated 27.01.2021. Being aggrieved, respondents No.5 to 8
filed the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner who
vide impugned order dated 28.02.2024 has set aside the orders of the
authorities sanctioning the mutation by clarifying that the parties may
approach the revenue authorities for updation of the revenue record in
terms of the judgment of the Civil Court. He submits that the learned
Financial Commissioner by passing a cryptic order has set aside the well
reasoned order passed by the authorities and thus, the same being
unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside.
3. Heard. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is deciphered that the mutation under dispute was entered and
sanctioned on the basis of the unregistered exchanged deed executed by
respondent No.9 with the petitioners. Respondents No.5 to 8 had already
filed suit for specific performance against the petitioners and in the said
suit the exchanged deed had also been challenged. The ad interim
injunction was also granted by the Civil Court in favour of respondents
No.5 to 8. However, as observed by the learned Financial Commissioner,
the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his order dated 18.03.2020 while
sanctioning the mutation had observed that the stay application filed by
respondent No.5 was rejected by the Civil Court which was found to be
factually incorrect. Hence, the observation made by the Financial
Commissioner in the impugned order in setting aside the order impugned
before him does not suffer from any infirmity as he has duly observed that
the parties can approach the revenue authorities after the decision of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062698
CWP-9944-2024 4 2024:PHHC:062698
Civil Court. Hence, finding no merit in the present petition the same is
hereby dismissed. However, the parties would be at liberty to approach
the revenue authorities after the decision of the civil suit as already
observed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the impugned order
dated 28.02.2024.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
01.05.2024 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
