Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate

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 Mutation dated 30.03.2006. When the petitioners came to know, they filed application for review of the Mutation on 04.03.2010. Thereafter, the appeal was filed against the mutation order dated 30.03.2006, however, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dismissed the appeal holding the same to be time barred vide his order dated 07.04.2011. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner ordered the review of the mutation vide his order dated 15.05.2013. This order was never challenged by any party and thus, became final. However, as no action was taken for review of the order, the petitioners filed their representation on 04.11.2014. However, learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade in violation of the law rejected the review and confirmed the mutation on the ground that the petitioners had purchased the specific khasra vide his order dated 12.06.2015. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 16.10.2017. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2017. He contends that ROR filed was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2024 for extraneous considerations. It is submitted that learned Financial Commissioner without adverting to the findings regarding there being no express consent for partition and signatures of the petitioners has set aside the order on the ground that Mutation No.4072 was already upheld in the appeal by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 07.04.2011 and therefore, attained finality. He submits that the learned Financial Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the Deputy Commissioner had already ordered for the review of mutation. He further submits that once the mutation was illegal its effect given in subsequent Jamabandi does not take away the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities to review the order when it was entered as a result of fraud. It is submitted that the only exception is the oral family partition. However, once there was written agreement, it could not be relied upon unless entered in the revenue record. Hence, the mutation entered was illegal and contrary to the public policy. He vehemently contends that Mutation No.4072 was sanctioned on the basis of family partition to which the petitioners were never the signatory. It is submitted that the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner is against the judgment rendered by this Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court report in Jai Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh, 2009(15)SCC 747. He has submitted that the Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction as it was required to deal with the permission to review the said Mutation No.4072. He has submitted that the appeal was dismissed on 16.10.2017 which was under consideration before the learned Commissioner. Hence, the matter regarding rev