Letters Patent Appeal No.1514 of 2012 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

Letters Patent Appeal No.1514 of 2012

Date of Decision: 28.9.2012

Satwinder Singh and another

..Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present:

Mr. S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the appellants.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (ORAL)

The appellants pray that order dated 22.3.2012, allowing the

writ petition filed by Manjit Singh, respondent no.8, and directing revenue

authorities to sanction a mutation in accordance with sale deed dated

20.9.1990, may be set aside.

Counsel for the appellants submits that admittedly sale deed

dated 20.9.1990, was not accompanied by delivery of possession. The

revenue authorities, therefore, rightly relied upon Chapter 7.17 of the

Punjab Land Records Manual and rejected the application for sanction of

a mutation. The writ petition, filed by respondent No.8, has been wrongly

allowed by ignoring Chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Records Manual and

by holding that revenue authorities have no power to refuse a mutation on

the ground that possession has not been delivered.

Letters Patent Appeal No.1514 of 2012 2

We have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the

impugned order.

A mutation, is a mere fiscal entry recorded, to reflect a change

of rights, to up-date revenue record and, therefore, neither confers nor

divests a party of title. The procedure for recording mutations is set out in

Sections 34 to 40 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter

referred to as the “1887 Act”).

Section 34 (1) of the 1887 Act, requires a person, acquiring

any right, either by inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise, in an

estate as a land-owner, assignee of land-revenue or occupancy tenant

having a right of occupancy to report his acquisition of the right to the

patwari of the estate. Section 34 (3) of the 1887 Act, requires the patwari

to enter in his register of mutations, every such report of acquisition of any

right, title or interest in land that falls in his jurisdiction. Sub-section (4) of

Section 34 of the 1887 Act requires a revenue officer to inquire into the

correctness of entries in the register of mutations and attest mutations,

recorded by a patwari. After attestation, a mutation is finally entered in the

records-of-rights by describing the right acquired or by omission of or

addition to the already existing entry.

Chapter 7.17 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, however,

instructs revenue officers not to record a mutation, if possession has not

been delivered and reads as follows:

“7.17 Disallowment of transfers not yet carried into effect.-

Except in cases of entries of collateral mortgages in column 12

of the jamabandi, the patwari should also ascertain whether

possession has passed and a mutation of transfer by gift, sale

or mortgage should not be attested unless (a) possession is

Letters Patent Appeal No.1514 of 2012 3

proved to have actually passed, or (b) the parties all agree

before the attesting officer that possession has passed, or (c)

the parties have all agreed in a registered document that

possession has passed. A mutation should not be refused

merely because it is claimed that the alienor has no right by

custom or statute to make such an alienation. Such a

transaction is a “fact” until it is set aside in due course of law.

In the case of a mutation in which it is a condition of the

transfer that possession be given after certain harvests, if the

alienor is prepared to give and the alienee to receive

possession on the prescribed date, attestation should be

postponed until such time, and mutation then allowed on

evidence that possession has been taken. (But, in the event of

any dispute between the parties, the attesting officer should

refuse the mutat