Back
2026 Supreme(P&H) 338
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARSH BUNGER, J.
Vishal Sharma – Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, District Ludhiana and others – Respondents
CWP-13370-2026 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-05-2026
For the petitioner:Mr. Dushyant Rana, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Navneet Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when an efficacious alternate statutory remedy is available. Parties are required to exhaust such remedies before approaching the court, and making false declarations regarding the absence of such remedies in pleadings is strictly deprecated.
Headnote:(A) Revenue Law - Mutation of property - Availability of alternate remedy - Writ jurisdiction - Petitioner sought mandamus for inquiry into mutation entry - Mutation is amenable to appeal/revision under relevant revenue statutes - Petitioner made false declaration regarding lack of efficacious remedy - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when statutory remedies are available - Conduct of petitioner in misrepresenting facts is deprecated. (Paras 4, 4.1, 8)
(B) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 23 - Cancellation of transfer deed - Previous litigation regarding property transfer - Petitioner failed to challenge adverse orders in prior proceedings - Writ petition dismissed for failure to exhaust alternate remedies. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to authorities to conduct an inquiry into a property mutation entry, alleging it was fraudulent. It was admitted that the mutation could be challenged through appeal or revision under the relevant revenue legislation. Furthermore, the petitioner had previously been involved in litigation regarding the cancellation of a transfer deed under senior citizen welfare laws, which resulted in an adverse order that remained unchallenged.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy under the revenue statutes to challenge the mutation. The court also noted that the petitioner provided a false declaration in the petition claiming no other remedy existed, which was strongly deprecated.
Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy and whether the petitioner's declaration regarding the absence of such remedies was accurate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appellate or revisional remedies. Since the petitioner had a clear legal path to challenge the mutation through revenue authorities, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
-
appeal and revision
- revenue authorities
- dismissal of petition
-
remedy
- alternate remedy
-
writ jurisdiction
-
property law
-
mutation
- fraudulent transfer
-
transfer deeds
-
maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act
- cancellation of transfer deed
-
maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act
-
mutation
-
family law
-
parent and child rights
- maintenance
-
parent and child rights
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks administrative intervention regarding property mutation dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. writ jurisdiction is unavailable when efficacious statutory alternate remedies exist. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. prior unchallenged orders under special welfare statutes remain binding. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral)
1 Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, for directing respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-13) submitted by petitioner.
2. The representation dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-13) reads as under:-
“SUB: REQUEST TO MARK AN INQUIRY AGAINST MUTATION NO.40447 DATED 5/7/2025 IN FAVOUR OF SUNITA SHARMA.
SIR,
I VISHAL SHARMA S/O SH. HARMOHAN SHARMA R/o H.No: 1067/1, PWD COLONY, OPP. COMMISSIONER POLICE RESIDENCE, LUDHIANA, I AM OWNER IN POSSESSION OF MY ABOVE SAID RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THAT ON 16th SEP 2025 WHEN I GOT A COPY OF JAMABANDI OF MY PROPERTY I WAS SHOCKED TO KNOW THE FACT THAT MY SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFER AND MUTATED FALSELY AND UNLAWFULLY INTO THE NAME OF SUNITA SHARMA AS THE MATTER OF FACT THAT I HAVE NEVER TRANSFERRED THE SAID PROPERTY BY WAY OF ANY DEED OR STATEMENT IN FAVOUR OF SUNITA SHARMA AFTER THIS FACT CAME INTO MY KNOWLEDGE I INQUIRED THE MATTER ON MY PERSONAL LEVEL AND CAME TO KNOW THAT VARUN SHARMA, SHEENU SHARMA, SHILPI SHARMA, VIVEK SHARMA IN CONNIVANCE WITH SANJAY SHARMA HAVING A DISHONEST INTENTION GOT CREATED THIS FALSE MUTATION TO INDUCE UNLAWFUL OWNERSHIP OF SUNITA SHARMA SO TO TAKE FORCIBLE POSSESSION OF MY PROPERTY. IT IS HUMBLE REQUESTED TO PLEASE MARK AN CONFIDENTIAL INQUIRY FROM SOME SENIOR PCS LEVEL OFFICER REGARDING THE MUTATION NO: 40447 AND STRICT ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST ABOVE NAMED PERSONS & OTHERS INVOLVED IN THIS FRAUDULENT ACT. IT IS ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE SAID PERSONS ALONG WITH THE RECORD OF PATWARI BE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INTO YOUR CUSTODY SO THAT NO MATERIAL ALTERATION CAN BE DONE TO SUPPRESS THE FACTS AND TO MISLEAD THE INQUIRY. SIR ACTION TAKEN AT THE EARLIEST IS VERY MUCH REQUIRED TO SERVE THE JUSTICE. I WITH MY FOLDED HANDS THANK YOU FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS.”
3. Apparently, the petitioner is stated to be aggrieved against mutation No.40447 dated 05.07.2025, executed in favour of Smt. Sunita Sharma (mother of the petitioner).
4. During the course of hearing of this petition, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid mutation is amenable to appeal/revision before the Revenue Authorities in terms of Sections 13 and 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, whereas in para No.16 of the writ petition, petitioner has given the following declaration:-
“16. That the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.”
4.1. Apparently, the petitioner have given a wrong declaration in the writ petition only to file the present writ petition before this Court, which is deprecated.
5. That apart, it is also not disputed before this Court, that the transfer deeds {vasika Nos. 5517 dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) and vasika No.5519 dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P-6)} have been executed by Smt. Sunita Sharma (mother of the petitioner) in favour of the petitioner by clearly recording that the transferee shall take care of transferor (Sunita Sharma) and also fulfill her basic needs, failing which the transfer deed(s) will be cancelled and both the parties will be bound by Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, (in short “2007 Act”). It is further not disputed that on a petition being filed by Smt. Sunita Sharma, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid transfer deed(s), the competent authority under the 2007 Act, has already passed an order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby, one of the transfer deed already stands cancelled.
6. It is further borne out of from the para No.15 of the writ petition that even an appeal filed by the petitioner against the
