Revenue mutation based on unchallenged civil court decree and consolidation order cannot be quashed without assailing those foundational documents.

JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“(i) That impugned order dated 23.06.2017 23.06 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Leamed Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh in Revision Petition No. 44/2015, order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure P. 5) pasted by Learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division in Case No. 400/2012, order dated 16.06.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed By the Learned Collector, Sub- Division Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Case No. 35/2011, may kindly be quashed and set aside by Issuing writ of certiorari and justice may be done.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that feeling aggrieved by entry of mutation carried out by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, i.e. mutation No.341, dated 24.09.2011, of Mouza Neri Hadbast No.17, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, inter alia, on the ground that the respondents had purchased land measuring 2-9-15 bighas vide Sale Deed No. 299, dated 22.06.1988, however, the impugned mutation was carried out ignoring this fact that in terms of the Sale Deed, only land measuring 2-9-15 bighas was sold to the respondents.

3. The appeal was dismissed by Sub-Divisional Collector, Sundernagar, vide Annexure P-3, i.e. order dated 16.06.2012, by inter alia, holding that during the Consolidation Operation vide mutation No.184, dated 22.08.1993, Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar had ordered the correction in the area of Khasra No.437, measuring measuring 2-9-15 bighas to 4-11-4 bighas, which was later on converted into Khasra No.437/1, presently Khasra No. 283, measuring 2-19-3 bighas and Khasra No. 437/2, presently Khasra No.284 measuring 1-12-1 bigha. Sub-Divisional Collector also observed that in a civil litigation between the parties, that is Civil Suit No.194/93 decided on 07.01.1998, which was filed by the respondents against the present petitioners, eight Issues were framed and Issues No.3 and 4 framed therein were as under:-

“Issue No.3- Whether the plaintiffs have purchased only 2-9-15 bighas of land vide registered sale deed dated 22.06.1988 and mutation has also been attested in their favour, as alleged? OPD".

"Issue No.4- Whether the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was a tenant over a portion of the suit land i.e Khasra No. 437/1, measuring 2-19-3 bighas and the defendants have become owner in possession of the same, as alleged? OPD.".

The Sub-Divisional Collector observed that in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sundernagar, Issue No.3 was answered in affirmative and Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants, i.e. the present petitioners. The Officer also observed that the Civil Court in Para-7 of the judgment and decree held that it could be safely said that Khasra No.437, measuring 2-9-15 bighas was possessed by the plaintiffs as owners and that element of interference was there at the behest of defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

4. Sub Divisional Collector, thereafter, held that the mutation under challenge was correctly attested by the learned lower Court, based on the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, dated 07.01.1988 and factual position regarding the suit land and the order of Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar increasing the area of Khasra No.437 from measuring 2-9-15 bighas to 4-11-4 bighas.

5. In the