Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Curo India Private Limited vs Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors on 4 March, 2014
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CWP-611-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.611 of 2014
Date of decision: March 04, 2014
M/s Curo India Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
Petitioner has filed instant petition impugning order dated 10.09.2013 (Annexure P-17), passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby he has declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction and change the mutation entries.
It appears, a mutation No.1652 was sanctioned by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Jalandhar vide order dated 6.7.2007 in respect of land measuring 04 Kanals 05 Marlas as described. A Tatima was drawn up in presence of both the parties highlighting the boundaries. This mutation attained finality as it was not challenged by any of the parties. However, four years thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner for correction in mutation No.1652, Hadbast No.257, Tehsil Jalandhar-I. This application was made contending that mutation had to be in accordance with recital in the sale deed dated 11.4.2007. Same was Singh Rajpal 2014.03.06 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-611-2014 2 dismissed by Deputy Commissioner Jalandhar vide order dated 7.10.2011. Petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. While accepting the appeal, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the authorities below to carry out necessary correction in the revenue record (Tatima). Aggrieved, respondent No.5 filed CWP No.9976 of 2013 before this court. Same was withdrawn with liberty to challenge impugned order before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. A revision petition was, thus, filed before said authority. After hearing both the parties, the Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was merit in the revision petition as mutation was sanctioned in presence of both the parties. Petitioner had moved application for correction in the Tatima after a lapse of four years, thus, order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner was unsustainable. Said order has been impugned before this court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order passed by Financial Commissioner deserves to be set-aside. The Tatima was wrongly drawn up. Mutation had to be strictly in terms of the sale deed and Tatima had to reflect the same. The Financial Commissioner, thus, gravely erred while passing the impugned order.
I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, mutation was sanctioned in presence of both the parties. No challenge was posed to the proceedings or the Tatima drawn up by the revenue authority. Apparently, petitioner also filed an application for demarcation of land on the basis of said Singh Rajpal 2014.03.06 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-611-2014 3 mutation. Petitioner sought review after a lapse of four years. The application having been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Appeal was entertained by the said authority and order was reversed. There is nothing to show that there was any infirmity with the Tatima as drawn up originally. Respondent No.1 while deciding the revision petition perused the recitals in the sale deed and came to the conclusion that mutation, as originally sanctioned, was correct and in accordance with the terms of the sale deed. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It is inexplicable why the petitioner remained silent for four years after mutation was sanctioned. It filed application before the Deputy Commissioner for review of the mutation after considerable period. Same was, thus, rejected. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no case is made out for interference in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. Besides, certain disputed questions of facts are involved. Adjudication thereof is not possible in writ jurisdiction. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 04, 2014 'rajpal' Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes / No Singh Rajpal 2014.03.06 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh