Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 21 November, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ist set
Serial Nos.1 to 5 C.W.P. Nos.13019 to 13023 of 2006
Smt.Nirmaljit Kaur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
2nd set
'' 6. C.W.P. No.13024 of 2006
Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
'' 7. C.W.P. No.13025 of 2006
Paramjit Kaur ..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
'' 8. C.W.P. No.13026 of 2006
Jaswinder Kaur ..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
'' 9. C.W.P. No.13027 of 2006
Kulwant Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
'' 10. C.W.P. No.13055 of 2006
Satwant Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents
Date of Decision:-21.11.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate for
Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Siddarath, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -2-
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Perhaps, these two sets of writ petitions are the oldest cases at motion stage on the list of the Bench, which were instituted as back as on 18.8.2006 (more than five years ago).
2. As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated two sets of writ petitions, arising out of the same impugned order, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which are essential to be noticed, have been extracted from (1) CWP No.13019 of 2006 titled as "Nirmaljit Kaur & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors." and (6) CWP No.13024 of 2006 titled as "Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors." for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the Ist and 2nd sets of the writ petitions respectively.
3. The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that one Baldev Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh (since deceased) was the original owner and in possession of the land in dispute, situated in village Bholapur, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. He had alienated his land for legal necessity, by means of duly executed five sale deeds, bearing Nos.4736 dated 19.5.1999, 5166, 5167 dated 24.5.1999, 6406 and 6407 dated 4.6.1999 in favour of Gurinder Kaur (respondent No.4). The sale consideration was stated to have been paid through different bank drafts depicted therein and the possession was delivered by the vendor to the vendee on the same day and in pursuance of registered sale deeds.
4. Having purchased the land, by way of sale deeds mentioned hereinabove, respondent No.4 requested the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (for short "AC 2nd Grade") to sanction the mutations in this respect.
5. Respondent No.4 claimed that during the course of pendency of mutation proceedings, Narain Singh son of Devinder Singh son of Baldev Singh (respondent No.6) had forged the power of attorney of his grand-father Baldev C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -3- Singh and had illegally executed the subsequent sale deeds in favour of his father Devinder Singh (respondent No.5) and his father-in-law Kashmira Singh son of Sohal Singh (since deceased), being represented by the petitioners (in Ist set of petitions), in order to defeat her rights.
6. Instead of sanctioning the mutations in favour of respondent No.4 on the basis of initial registered sale deeds, the AC 2nd Grade rejected her claim only on the ground that possession has not yet been changed at the spot, vide order dated 11.12.2000 Annexure P1 (in 1st set of cases) and on the other end, AC 2nd Grade sanctioned the mutations on the basis of subsequent sale deeds in favour of Devinder Singh, father (respondent No.5) and Kashmira Singh father-in-law of Narain Singh (respondent No.6), by means of order dated 25.10.2000 Annexure P1 (in 2nd set of petitions).
7. Aggrieved by the orders (Annexures P1), respondent No.4 filed the appeals, which were accepted and the indicated orders of AC 2nd Grade were set aside and the Collector ordered the sanctioning of five mutations, bearing Nos.1796 to 1800 on the basis of initial sale deeds executed by late Baldev Singh in her (Gurinder Kaur) favour, by way of order dated 8.8.2001 Annexure P3 (in 1st set of cases), which, in substance, is (para 5) as under:-
"After hearing the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have come to the conclusion that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade had got no such right to reject the sanctioning of mutation on the registered sale deed. Keeping in view the circumstances the appeals of the appellants are allowed and order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the lower Court is set aside. Hence, all five mutations no.1796, 1797, 1798, 1799 and 1800 regarding sale deed of documents no.4736 dated 19.05.1999, document no.6406-07 dated 04.06.1999 executed by Baldev Singh in favour of Gurinder Kaur widow of Sarabjit Singh are sanctioned in new condition. A copy of each order be included in the file of every appeal as the parties and facts in these appeals are same."
8. Sequelly, the Collector ordered the rejection of the mutations entered C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -4- on the basis of second set of sale deeds in favour of subsequent vendees (private respondents), through the medium of order of even date Annexure P2 (in 2nd set of petitions), which is (para 7) as under:-
"Arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties were heard and the facts on case file were also perused thoroughly. The objections raised by the appellant that respondent no.1 has got sanctioned fake mutations after preparing fake power of attorney. At the time of sanctioning of mutations by the Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Ludhiana on the basis of sale deed, the fact relating to not mentioning of date on the orders made by him and marking the presence of deceased person and person living outside, at the spot prove the version of appellant to be true. Therefore, all the five appeals of appellant are allowed and that the orders passed by the lower court regarding aforesaid mutation and sale are set aside. The facts of all the five appeals are same and as such these five appeals are also decided with this order of mine. One copy of each of this order be attached in all the five appeals.
Order pronounced. Files of appeal be consigned to record room after completion."
9. Dissatisfied with the orders of Collector, Kashmira Singh son of Sohal Singh (subsequent vendee), father-in-law of Narain Singh (respondent No.6) filed the appeals, which were accepted. The Commissioner (Appeals) negatived the claim of respondent No.4 and restored the order dated 11.12.2000 Annexure P1 (in 1st set of petitions) and order dated 25.10.2000 Annexure P1 (in 2nd set of cases), of AC 2nd Grade, by means of order dated 21.5.2004 Annexure P5 (in 1st set petitions) and Annexure P4 (in 2nd set of cases).
10. Again aggrieved by the order (Annexure P5) (in 1st set of petitions) and (Annexure P4) (in 2nd set of cases), respondent No.4 filed ten revision petitions, which were accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) (respondent No.2), by way of common impugned order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure P7) (in 1st set of cases) and (Annexure P6) ( in 2nd set of petitions) and restored the orders of Collector.
C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -5-
11. The petitioners, LRs of Kashmira Singh (since deceased) and other subsequent vendees, did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petitions, challenging the impugned order of Financial Commissioner invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, leaving this Court in lurch to think, as to what extent, the finding should be recorded with regard to the controversy raised in the present petitions, as the same would naturally have the direct bearing on the real issues between the parties, to be determined by the civil Court. Be that as it may, but in the interest of justice, the principle of "safety saves" has to be kept in focus in this relevant context, while deciding the instant petitions. That is how, I am seized of the matter.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petitions in this regard.
13. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the AC 2nd Grade has rightly sanctioned the mutations in favour of petitioners and negatived the claim of respondent No.4, so, the Financial Commissioner committed a legal mistake in rejecting their claim and accepting the claim of respondent No.4, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
14. As is evident from the record that late Baldev Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh, father of Devinder Singh (respondent No.5) and grand father of Narain Singh son of Devinder Singh (respondent No.6) was the owner and in possession of land in litigation. He (Baldev Singh) had alienated his land for legal necessity, by virtue of duly executed five sale deeds, bearing Nos.4736 dated 19.5.1999, 5166, 5167 dated 24.5.1999, 6406 and 6407 dated 4.6.1999 in favour of Gurinder Kaur (respondent No.4). The sale consideration was claimed to have been paid through different bank drafts described therein and the possession was delivered by the vendor to the vendee on the same day and in pursuance of original C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -6- registered sale deeds. According to respondent No.4 that the factum of her registered sale deeds was in the knowledge of petitioners, but Narain Singh forged a power of attorney of late Baldev Singh and fraudulently executed the subsequent sale deeds in favour of his father Devinder Singh and father-in-law Kashmira Singh, in order to defeat her rights.
15. As is clear that the AC 2nd Grade, vide order (Annexure P1) (in Ist set of petitions) negatived the claim of respondent No.4 only on the ground that possession has not yet been changed at the spot and on the contrary, sanctioned the mutations, through the medium of order (Annexure P1) (in 2nd set of cases) in favour of petitioners, ignoring the glaring facts of subsequent alleged power of attorney obtained by Narain Singh from his grand-father Baldev Singh and subsequent fraudulent sale deeds of the same land (already sold to respondent No.4) in favour of his father and father-in-law. Moreover, he (AC 2nd Grade) has marked the presence of deceased person or person living outside the village at the time of mutation proceedings. These glaring facts and suspicious circumstances surrounded/attached to alleged power of attorney and fraudulent subsequent sale deeds were overlooked by the AC 2nd Grade with impunity. The same were duly considered in the right perspective and deep errors committed by AC 2nd Grade were duly corrected by the Collector in this relevant connection.
16. Strange enough, but the Commissioner, in a very casual manner, set aside the well reasoned order of Collector by passing a cryptic order and has only mentioned in it that "I do agree with the contention of the counsel for the appellants that mutations cannot be sanctioned unless actual possession of the purchaser and Civil litigation is pending on the same issue. Here, to me, the AC 2nd Grade and Commissioner slipped into a legal error in this respect. Although respondent No.4 has categorically reiterated that Baldev Singh vendor had handed over the possession of disputed land to her on the same date at the time of execution of sale deeds, but assuming for the sake of argument (though not C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -7- admitted), if there is no actual delivery of possession, even then, AC 2nd Grade was duty bound to enter the mutations on the basis of registered sale deeds in favour of respondent No.4 as contemplated under section 34 and in case of entertaining any kind of doubt of acquisition of any interest in the land other than respondent No.4, then he was duty bound to refer the same (disputed mutations) to the Collector for its adjudication, as envisaged under section 35 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
17. Likewise, he did not have the jurisdiction to sanction the mutations in favour of the petitioners on the basis of subsequent sale deeds, particularly when the alleged subsequent power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds of the same land already sold to respondent No.4, executed by Narain Singh grand son of Baldev Singh, in favour of his father and father-in-law, were surrounded by deep suspicious circumstances, as mentioned here-in-above. Moreover, he has also marked the presence of dead person and person residing outside the village at the relevant time of alleged mutation. Above-all, specially when Baldev Singh had already alienated the same very land to respondent No.4, by virtue of original sale deeds in question. It is not a matter of dispute that the subject matter of sale deeds is sub-judice in civil litigation between the parties.
18. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that the validity or otherwise of the sale deeds mentioned hereinabove, are the subject matter of civil litigation between the parties. It is now well settled proposition of law that the proceedings of mutations are not judicial proceedings. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in cases Suraj Bhan & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner & Ors. 2007(6) SCC 186 and Rajinder Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. 2008(9) SCC 368 ruled that the mutation entries in revenue record C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -8- confer no title on the property. These are relevant for fiscal purpose and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent civil court in an appropriate proceeding. It was also held that the party aggrieved by the orders passed in mutation proceedings can always redress his grievance by way of filing suit for title, (which is already pending between the parties in the present case).
20. Therefore, to me, in the instant case, the AC 2nd Grade and Commissioner committed inherent legal mistake and exceeded their jurisdiction in this relevant connection, which were duly rectified by the Collector and Financial Commissioner respectively.
21. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders of Collector & Financial Commissioner are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf.
22. Meaning thereby, the Collector & Financial Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction in the impugned orders dated 8.8.2001 and 24.1.2006 respectively. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
23. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
24. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of final adjudication of civil litigation between the parties, as there is no merit, C.W.P.No.13019 of 2006 alongwith 9 connected petitions -9- therefore, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed with costs.
25. Be that as it may, however, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the subsequent civil proceedings, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petitions in mutation matter only.
26. Needless to mention here that sanction of mutations would naturally be subject to the ultimate decision of the civil court.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) 21.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No