GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Writ Petition No. 5025 of 1991 (Gurcharan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, and Ors. , and Civil Writ Petition No. 5024 of 1991, (Balbir Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, and Ors.) have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ for quashing the impugned order dated 6-4-1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab. Both these writ-petitions will be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as under :-Gurcharan Singh son of Balwant Singh and Balbir Singh, petitioners purchased the land, in dispute, through registered sale-deeds dated 8-6-1973 and 11-6-1973 from Mahadev Parshad, on the basis of which; mutations were sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 27. 6. 1977 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepore. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 22-11-1977. The revision petition filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepore, on 28-4-1982. The revision petitions R. O. R. No. 470 of 1981-82 and R. O. R. No. 471 of 1981-82 filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were allowed by the Financial Commissioner on 6-4-1990. While accepting the revision petitions, the Financial Commissioner held that sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners would defeat the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and, in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, these sale-deeds, therefore, can be held as unlawful and void. It was further held by the Financial Commissioner as follows :

(3.) IT was further held by the Financial Commissioner that normally, a Revenue Officer should not refuse to attest a mutation based on a registered sale-deed but, in a case (such cases are bound to be rare) if the Revenue Officer finds that a sale-deed is based on a void agreement, it would be quite legitimate for him to reject the mutation.