Validation of Civil Court decree and its impact on the mutation of land.

L.M. Goyal, F.C. - None present on behalf of the respondents, they are, therefore proceeded against ex-parte.

2. These are two references from Commissioner, Hissar Division wherein the parties have filed revisions before him in the mutation case against the orders passed by Collector Bhiwani dated 9.5.1983 and Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Siwani dated 10.1.1983. The Commissioner after going through the record of the case and orders passed by the lower revenue officers has come to the conclusion that they suffer from material irregularity and illegality. He has, therefore, recommended that the orders be set aside and the case be remanded to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to enter and attest mutation according to the decree of the Civil Courts dated 2.5.1972.

3. The facts of the case are that Chattar Singh suffered as decree dated 2.5.1972 in favour of Raj Kumar, Hansbir, Suresh Kumar, Rajbir, Surender Krishan, Dilbag Singh, Ranbir Singh and Jangbir Singh with regard to land measuring 212 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Naloi. On the basis of the decree of the Civil Court the patwari of the halqa entered the mutation No. 942 dated 14.8.1982. When this mutation was put up before A.C. IInd Grade, Chattar Singh son of Harchand objected to it. As a result, the Circle Revenue Officer declared this mutation as contested and forwarded the same to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Siwani for disposal, who after hearing the parties attested the mutation in favour of Raj Kumar, Hansbir, Suresh Kumar, Rajbir, Surender Krishan, Dilbag Singh, Ranbir Singh and Dharambir Singh vide his order dated 10.1.1983. A.C. Ist Grade while writing his orders missed out the name of Jangbir Singh. Against this order two appeals were filed before the Collector, one by Chattar Singh and the other by Jangbir Singh. The Collector, Bhiwani vide his order 9.5.1983 accepted the appeal of Chattar Singh and set aside the order passed by A.C. 1st Grade of sanctioning mutation No. 942, whereas the appeal filed by Jangbir Singh was dismissed.

4. The Collector while dismissing the appeal seems to have taken into account the stay orders dated 3.1.1983 granted by Sub Judge Bhiwani which was as under :-

"The application is supported by an affidavit, copy of decree sheet and the copy of the order. A prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are restrained from alienating the land in dispute in any manner till further order. They are restrained from getting the entries in the revenue record corrected and they are also restrained from getting the mutation entered on the basis of the said decree and judgment till further orders."

The Collector, Bhiwani has also held that intricate question of facts was to be decided by Civil Court and not by A.C. Ist Grade and as such the order passed by A.C. Ist Grade was set aside.

5. The counsel of the revisionist has pointed out that a material change has taken place since the Collector passed his orders. Appeal against the decree dated 2.5.1972 suffered by Shri Chattar Singh (Respondent No. 1) has since been decided on 11.9.90 by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani and the same has been held to be valid. The Court also dismissed cross-objections filed by Chattar Singh. The Regular Second Appeal No. 574 of 1991 filed by Chattar Singh (respondent No. 1) was also dismissed by Punjab and Haryana High Court and SLP in the Supreme Court had also been dismissed. Therefore, it has finally been held by Civil Court that Jangbir Singh is the owner in possession of share of the land measuring 212 kanals 17 marlas.

6. I find that the order of the Collector, Bhiwani dated 9.5.1983 was passed on the ground that validity of the decree dated 2.5.1972 of the Civil Court was challenged in the Civil Court and stay was granted. That matter has since been decided upto the level of High Court and the decree of 1972 has been found to be valid. Thus it is evident that the mutation should be sanctioned as per the decree dated