SHER SINGH Vs. SHIV DAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 3.11.2000 of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. The revisionists have stated that they and Kehar Singh, the predecessor in interest of the respondents, were co-sharers to the extent of 1/2 share in respect of the land measuring 242 Kanals 9 Marlas in village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. They have stated that Kehar Singh suffered a decree in their favour on 18.9.1993 on the basis of which the petitioners became the absolute owners in respect of 1/2 share of the said land. They stated that this decree was passed by the civil court on 18.9.1993 and has attained finality and it was never challenged. They have stated that on the basis of this decree, mutation No. 6958 was sanctioned on 4.5.1994 and this mutation was also never challenged and became final. They have stated that Kehar Singh died on 26.5.1996 and after his death, mutation No. 8250 was sanctioned on 5.7.1996 in respect the land in dispute inspite of the fact that the mutation No. 6958 had already been sanctioned in respect of the same land and this later mutation was sanctioned without notice to the petitioners and without hearing them. They have stated that, aggrieved with the order of sanctioning of mutation No. 8250, they appealed to Collector Faridabad against the same, who, vide order dated 2.6.1998, set aside the mutation No. 8250 on account of the fact that mutation No. 6958 had already been sanctioned in respect of that land and also ordered that the case may be made out for reviewing the mutation No. 6958, since it had been sanctioned on the basis of an unregistered decree. Their appeal to the Commissioner against this order was dismissed vide order dated 3.11.2000. The petitioners have now filed this revision petition against this order of the Commissioner.

(2.) WRITTEN arguments were submitted by the counsel for both the parties. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the Revenue Authorities are bound by a decree passed by a civil court which is binding on them. He stated that the court decree dated 18.9.1993 was never challenged and mutation No. 6958 which was sanctioned on the basis of this decree, was also never challenged during the life time of Kehar Singh and his legal heirs have also not challenged this mutation and therefore, it has become final. He stated that the Collector has rightly set aside mutation No. 8250 since mutation No. 6958 had already been sanctioned in respect of the same land, but he exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding that since the decree dated 18.9.1993 has not been registered, mutation No. 6958 could not have been sanctioned on the basis of this decree. He stated that the FCR has issued instructions on 19.11.1997 that if a decree involves transfer of rights in immovable property in favour of blood relations, then registration of he decree is not required and revenue officers should sanction the necessary mutation on the basis of such decree. He stated that the respondents themselves have now challenged the decree dated 18.9.1993 in the civil court and even on this basis also, the Revenue Authorities cannot pass any order relating to the decree of the civil courts, since the matter is sub-judice. He stated that under these circumstances, the order dated 3.11.2000 of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and the order dated 2.6.1998 of the Collector may be set aside. He quoted the following judgments in support of his arguments :

(3.) I have examined the case in detail. The order dated 2.6.98 of the Collector, in as much as it relates to setting aside of mutation No. 8250 and ordering a review of the same, is upheld, since it includes most of the area already included in mutation No. 6958. However, the Collector has also set aside mutation No. 6958 on the ground that it is a based on an unregistered decree. The petitioners have averred in their revision petition that the land in question was transferred in favour of the petitioners by Kehar Singh son of Kanwar Pal Singh, who was the brother of Achhpal Singh father of the petitioners and therefore the land was transferred in favour of blood relations, in which case the instructions dated 19.11.97 of the Department of Revenue, Govt. of Haryana become relevant. It has been stated in these instructions that registration of decrees regarding transfer of right in immovable property in favour of blood relations in the family is not required and the revenue officials should enter necessary mutations on the basis of the decrees of the court in such cases. The counsel for the respondents in the verbal and written arguments has not controverted this fact of their being a blood relation between Kehar Singh and the petitioners. The respondents have also controverted the Revenue Department instructions dated 19.11.97 or produced any other instructions which would over-rule the same. Under these circumstances, the ground on which the Collector has set aside mutation No. 6958, does not hold good. The fact remains that mutation No. 6958 is as per the court decree passed on 18.9.93. Therefore, the parameters of this mutation cannot be changed on any other basis except the decision in the appeal against this court order, which is pending. However, the respondents have not mentioned any stay order obtained against the civil Court decree dated 18.9.93. In the absence of any stay, the civil Court decree dated 18.9.93 still prevails and the mutation No. 6958, entered on the basis of this decree, is upheld. The order dated 3.11.2000 of the Commissioner and the order dated 2.6.98 of the Collector are set aside to the extent that they relate to mutation No. 6958. Consequently, mutation No. 6958 is upheld. To be communicated. Order accordingly.