HARDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 6/11/2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and respondent No.1, whereby, order dtd. 16/9/2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and respondent No.2 and the order dtd. 30/4/2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Patiala and respondent No.3, have been upheld.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners came into possession of the land in question on the basis of an agreement to sell in the year 1980. On the basis of the said agreement to sell, they are continuing in possession of the said land. The owner of the land has sold the property in question vide sale deed dtd. 17/5/2012 in favour of the private respondents. He contends that sale deed bearing vasika No.3038 dtd. 17/5/2012 when presented before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, the same was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Civil Court, however, on an appeal preferred by the private respondents, the Collector accepted the same ignoring the civil suit, which was pending and passed an order dtd. 3/4/2013 (Annexure P-2) ordering the mutation to be sanctioned in favour of the private respondents. The said order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner and then before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, without any success merely on the ground that the revenue authorities are bound to proceed with the mutation and sanction the same on presentation of registered sale deed. Counsel contends that when the petitioners came to know about the land having been sold in favour of the private respondents by the original owner of the property, who wanted to dispossess the petitioners, a suit for permanent injunction was preferred by them, which has been decreed ex parte by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2014 (Annexure P-5) restraining the private respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land except in due course of law. He, on this basis, contends that the mutation should not have been sanctioned in favour of the private respondents and therefore, the orders as passed by the revenue authorities cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside in the light of prohibition in Chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, on entering mutation if possession has not been delivered.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have gone through the impugned orders and records of the case.