BIMAL KUMAR Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATIALA DIVISION PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 5346 of 2012

(2.) The appellants came to know that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have forged another sale deed dated 3.8.1988 registered on 4.8.1988 by impersonating the appellants and their mother. The sale deed has also been challenged by way of a civil suit which is pending adjudication. An application filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for entering a mutation, in accordance with sale deed dated 3.8.1988, was rejected on the ground that possession has not been delivered. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, filed a second application for sanction of a mutation. The appellants put in appearance and filed objections to the proposed mutation on the ground that some of the appellants were minors at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed and the appellants have been impersonated. A mutation was, however, sanctioned in favour of private respondents. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patran. The private respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who set aside the order of remand and upheld the order passed by the Collector. The writ petition has been dismissed, without considering the legal pleas raised by the appellants or chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, which provides that a mutation should not be entered if possession has not been delivered. Counsel for the appellants also submits that apart from this legal error, the appellants were not allowed to lead evidence by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to prove that the sale deed has been obtained by fraud and impersonation. The Commissioner has merely held that as mutation is a mere fiscal entry, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. In view of Pendency of the civil suit, the mutation should be kept in abeyance.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.