Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The issue relates to mutation entered in the names of private respondents. The petitioners plead that this mutation is done on the basis of forged sale deeds, alleged to have been executed by the original land owners while the land so sold already stood acquired by the Government after following due process and procedure under the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) on 24.2.1960. The award was passed on 17.4.1961. Thereafter, the State had deposited the compensation and, thus, became the owner of the land, which is allegedly sold to the respondents. As is alleged in the petition, ignoring this position, mutation of this land has been entered in the name of respondents on the basis of these sale deeds.

2. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.1.1960 for acquisition of 221 acres of land, situated in village Chak Yusufpur Alewal, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.2.1960. The compensation was deposited on 14.3.1961 and, thus, the State of Punjab became the owner of the land. A mutation of the land in dispute was also entered in the name of the State of Punjab, but still the private respondents in connivance with the revenue staff have got the mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of some forged and fabricated sale deeds, which have been executed by the original land owners, i.e., the father of the petitioners.

3. Upon acquisition, some portion of the land after having been utilized for completion of Harike Project was found surplus. A meeting accordingly was held on 9.7.1981 under the Chairmanship of the then Financial Commissioner and it was decided to transfer the surplus land to original owners in terms of the standing order of the Financial Commissioner. This was to be done after receipt of compensation paid at he time of acquisition, less 15% the arrears of rent, if any, was to be recovered at the time of allotment of land.

4. On 22.2.2006, Collector Shahkot transferred the land in favour of the petitioners. By then, father of the petitioners had expired. The petitioners deposited the price of the land and the copy of the certificate in this regard is annexed with the petition. Despite this, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Shahkot has entered the mutation in the names of the private respondents, whereafter the petitioners filed five separate appeals. Collector allowed the appeals on 20.10.2006 holding that all the five sale deeds have been cancelled by the Government in the year 1981 and the land was then transferred in favour of the Irrigation Department. Thereafter, the private respondents filed five appeals before the Commissioner, Jalandhar, which were dismissed on 13.3.2009. Respondents then filed five revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, who, on 17.8.2010 has accepted the revisions and has held that the alleged sale deeds cannot be ignored for the purpose of sanctioning mutation.

5. Notice of motion was issued after making detailed reference to the submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Court had indeed noticed in the order while issuing notice of motion that this land was returned to the petitioners without considering the effect of the sale deeds or the legality thereof. The Court accordingly observed that it may have to be seen if the land was returned by fraud. Noticing that the Financial Commissioner while sanctioning the mutation has not kept in view the aspect of acquisition of this land by the Government while fully relying on the sale deeds to direct mutation of the land in favour of the respondents, this Court has observed that there may be a need of some enquiry in this case.

6. In response to notice, a written statement is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 18. Reference is made to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act acquiring land measuring 1733 kanals and 8 marlas in Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar for completion of Ha