Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - CM No.5346 of 2012

1. Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 18 days in refiling the appeal.

2. Allowed, as prayed.

CM No. 5347 of 2012

3. Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 06 days in filing the appeal.

4. Heard.

5. Delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2033 of 2012

6. The appellants pray that order dismissing their writ petition and orders passed by revenue officers entering a mutation, in favour of the private respondents may be set aside.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants no.1 to 3 and their brother Chet Ram purchased 5/6th share, in equal shares from one Rikhi Ram, out of khasra no.45//2/1/2/1, vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.1973. Pyare Lal son of Mansa Ram purchased 1/6th share, i.e., 02 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.1973. Chet Ram, brother of the appellants, passed away unmarried and issueless and therefore, his share was inherited by Murti Devi, their mother. The appellants constructed a house on the plot. Pyare Lal son of Mansa Ram sold more than his share to Ridhima Jain daughter of respondent no.3 and Monika Goel wife of Rajiv Goel vide sale deed dated 24.12.2010. The appellants have filed a civil suit alleging that the sale deed is forged and fabricated and beyond the share of Pyare Lal.

8. The appellants came to know that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have forged another sale deed dated 3.8.1988 registered on 4.8.1988 by impersonating the appellants and their mother. The sale deed has also been challenged by way of a civil suit which is pending adjudication. An application filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 for entering a mutation, in accordance with sale deed dated 3.8.1988, was rejected on the ground that possession has not been delivered. Respondent nos. 3 and 4, however, filed a second application for sanction of a mutation. The appellants put in appearance and filed objections to the proposed mutation on the ground that some of the appellants were minors at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed and the appellants have been impersonated. A mutation was, however, sanctioned in favour of private respondents. The appeal filed by the appellants was allowed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patran. The private respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner, who set aside the order of remand and upheld the order passed by the Collector. The writ petition has been dismissed, without considering the legal pleas raised by the appellants or chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Record Manual, which provides that a mutation should not be entered if possession has not been delivered. Counsel for the appellants also submits that apart from this legal error, the appellants were not allowed to lead evidence by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to prove that the sale deed has been obtained by fraud and impersonation. The Commissioner has merely held that as mutation is a mere fiscal entry, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. In view of pendency of the civil suit, the mutation should be kept in abeyance.

9. We have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order.

10. Admittedly, as a civil suit is pending adjudication inter parties, the legality of the sale deeds would be finally decided by the civil Court. A mutation is a mere fiscal entry recorded by a revenue officer to update revenue record and, therefore, neither confers nor divests a party of title. A revenue officer has no jurisdiction, whether conferred by Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1887 Act”) Act or by instructions contained in the Punjab Land Record Manual to opine as to the legality of a registered sale deed. While recording a mutation, a revenue officer merely makes a summary inquiry to satisfy himself, particularly, where rights have been transferred by a registered instrument as to the names of parties, the date of execution and