Back
2011(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) 3446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
CWP No.16338 of 2011
Shamsher Singh
v.
Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & Ors.
{Decided on 02/09/2011}
Mutation--Question of Title and Possession--Mutation must be carried out strictly as per the ultimate judgment/decree in the suit--Meanwhile entry should be made to the effect that mutation is contested between such and such and shall be carried out as per the final judgment by civil Court so that prospective buyer cannot be cheated and misled by any of the party, on the basis of mutation.
(A) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.36--Mutation--Question of Title and Possession--Held; Mutation proceedings are summary proceedings in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of recovery of the land revenue and to update the revenue record--Any observation, finding or decision in the mutation proceeding shall not be res judicata and shall have no adverse effect in a regular suit involving question of title and possession. (Para 17)
(B) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.36--Mutation--Question of Title and Possession--If mutation is opposed or contested by the parties claiming their respective title or inheritance, parties should be left to approach the Civil Court to get their title decided and mutation proceedings should be kept in abeyance awaiting decision in civil suit--After abolition of land revenue in the States of Punjab and Haryana nothing is to be recovered so even for fiscal purpose no mutation is required to be carried out if mutation is disputed/contested by the respective parties claiming their respective title--Mutation must be carried out strictly as per the ultimate judgment/decree in the suit--Meanwhile entry should be made to the effect that mutation is contested between such and such and shall be carried out as per the final judgment by civil Court so that prospective buyer cannot be cheated and misled by any of the party, on the basis of mutation. (Para 20)
(C) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.36--Mutation--Question of Title and Possession--Writ petition arising out of summary proceedings of mutation should ordinarily be not entertained and parties should be left to get their respective title decided in a suit for declaration. (Para 21)
(D) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.36--Mutation--Question of Title and Possession--Any third party interest created during the pendency of the civil suit involving the question of title shall be hit by principle of lis pendens and can be taken care of by the civil court hearing the suit--Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.51. (Para 24)
Mr. Alok Singh, J. (Oral): - Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the orders dated 16.11.2010, 26.9.2007 and 30.3.2007 passed by respondents No.1, 2 and 3, respectively, arising out of the mutation proceedings.
2. Petitioner is claiming himself natural heir of Mohinder Singh being his son while private respondents are claiming inheritance on the basis of alleged registered ‘Will’.
3. Undisputedly, as on day no land revenue is assessed or is being recovered in the States of Punjab and Haryana.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that civil suit between the parties is already pending involving the question of inheritance of the estate of Mohinder Singh.
5. Privy Council in (Thakur) Nirman Singh and others versus Thakur Lal Rudra Partap Narain Singh and others, A.I.R.1926 Privy Council-100, has held as under:-
“It is an error to suppose that the proceedings for the mutation of names are judicial proceedings in which the title to and the proprietary rights in immovable property are determined. They are nothing of the kind, as has been pointed out times innumerable by the Judicial Committee. They are much more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the interest of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid.”
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sawarni Vs. Smt. Inder Kaur reported in 1996(7) JT 580 (SC) and Balwant Singh and another Vs. Daulat Singh reported in 1997 (Supp.) Civil Court Cases 262 (SC) has held that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title. Those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner reported in [2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1272] : 2007(6) SCC 186 has held that mutation entries are relevant for fiscal purpose and substantive rights and title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by competent Court in an appropriate proceeding.
8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, [2008(6) LAW HERALD (SC) 4373] : 2008(9) SCC 368, has ruled that mutation entry in revenue record confers no title on the property. It has further been observed by the Apex Court that party aggrieved by the orders passed in mutation proceedings, can always redress his grievance by way of filing suit for title.
9. This Court in the case of Makhan Singh and another Vs. Achhar Singh and others reported in 2000(3) PLR 65, Dhian Singh Vs. Sheela Devi reported in [2008(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1880] : 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 792 has held that mutation does not confer any title. Mutation is only for fiscal purpose to complete the record.
10. Allahabad High Court in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Board of Revenue and others, 1993(2) Allahabad Weekly Cases 932 (MANU/UP/0831/1993), Kunj Behari Vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2001(1) A.W.C. 613 (MANU/UP/0110/2001) and Ishu Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2003(1) A.W.C. 774 (MANU/UP/0019/2003) has held that mutation proceedings do not decide right of the parties, therefore, the parties are at liberty to approach the Court to decide title, hence, writ jurisdiction arising out of the mutation proceedings, is barred by alternative remedy.
11. Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammad Iqbal Vs. Government of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 445 (HP) has held that mutation does not confer any title on a person, in whose favour it is so attested and parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate Court to get their respective titles decided.
12. Learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in the case of Jasbir Kaur Vs. Harbhajan Singh reported in [2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2449 (FC)] : 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 596 has observed as under: -
“It is a settle
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
