Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Ajaib Singh – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court praying for quashing of orders dated 18.01.2024 and 12.06.2015 (Annexures P-12 & P-9) and order dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-10) wherein mutation No.4072 dated 30.03.2006 (Annexure P-2) has been set aside.2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners purchased 120 kanals 17 marlas of land from Chhota Singh vide sale deed dated 03.05.1963 and accordingly, Mutation No. 1835 was sanctioned. He has submitted that petitioners purchased the specific khasra numbers vide sale deed dated 03.05.1963. It has been submitted that the mutation was entered and it was sanctioned on 30.03.2006 by mentioning that all the co-sharers including the petitioners presented the agreement admitting partition. However, the mutation sheet did not have the signatures of the petitioners acknowledging their presence but the signatures of the respondents were there. He has submitted that there being no signatures on partition agreement, the same proves that fraud was committed by the respondents in connivance with the revenue officials. He has further submitted that the appeal was filed before the Collector against
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a mutation must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and the authority reviewing the muta....
The Revenue Tribunal must ensure compliance with statutory requirements in mutation proceedings, retaining jurisdiction to review such orders despite disputes over title.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate ownership disputes; such matters must be resolved in civil court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Divisional Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction in entertaining the revision application and passing the impugned orders, as the power o....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to consider the aspects of limitation and the effect of a compromise decree on mutation orders under the Land Reve....
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
