Gurcharan Singh vs The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Others

A.S. Nehra, J.—Civil Writ Petition No. 5025 of 1991 (Gurcharan Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, and Ors., and Civil Writ Petition No. 5024 of 1991, (Balbir Singh v. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, and Ors.) have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ for quashing the impugned order dated 6-4-1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab. Both these writ-petitions will be disposed of by this judgment.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :-

Gurcharan Singh son of Balwant Singh and Balbir Singh, petitioners purchased the land, in dispute, through registered sale-deeds dated 8-6-1973 and 11-6-1973 from Mahadev Parshad, on the basis of which; mutations were sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 27.6.1977 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepore. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 22-11-1977. The revision petition filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Ferozepore, on 28-4-1982. The revision petitions R. O. R. No. 470 of 1981-82 and R. O. R. No. 471 of 1981-82 filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were allowed by the Financial Commissioner on 6-4-1990. While accepting the revision petitions, the Financial Commissioner held that sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners would defeat the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and, in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, these sale-deeds, therefore, can be held as unlawful and void. It was further held by the Financial Commissioner as follows :-

"Admittedly, mutation proceedings are of the summary nature. It is also true that intricate questions of law or even the facts cannot be settled in these summary proceedings- However, the question whether Mahadev Parshad was a big landowner or a small landowner after the enforcement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act is not an intricate question. In fact, it is surprising that revenue officers, who are to implement the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, chose to favour a big landowner, relying on an order passed under the provisions of an old Act at a time when new Act had come into force. It is difficult to believe that a revenue officer would not know that under the new Act, ceiling of 7 hectares had been fixed. Apparently, he chose to use the pretext of the order of the Collector passed under the old Act for attesting mutations based on unlawful and void agreements".

It was further held by the Financial Commissioner that normally, a Revenue Officer should not refuse to attest a mutation based on a registered sale-deed but, in a case (such cases are bound to be rare) if the Revenue Officer finds that a sale-deed is based on a void agreement, it would be quite legitimate for him to reject the mutation.

Written statement has been filed by the S. D. O. (Civil), Ferozepore. In the written statement it has been stated that Mahadev Parshad son of Achhru Mat, was a small landowner under the Punjab Security of Land Treasures Act, 1953 (for short, ''the Act of 1953)'' as well as under the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. (for short, ''the Act of 1972''), as per the record maintained in the office. The contents of paragraph 3 of the writ-petition have been admitted and it has been stated by the S. O. O (Civil) that Mahadev Parshad owned land measuring 26 standard acres 9 3/4 units under the provisions of the Act of 1953 ; that consolidation proceedings took place in the village ; that, after consolidation, he owned 243 Kanals 16 Marlas of land ; that the land measuring 142 Kanals 15 Marlas equivalent to 3,63,22 hectares owned by Mahadev Parshad was of first quality under the provisons of the Act of 1972 ; and that, as such, Mahadev Parshad was a small landowner under the provisions of the Act of 1953 as well as under the Act of 1972. Paragraph 4 of the writ-petition is also admitted to the extent that Mahadev Parshad filed an application in Form K.-1 and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were ejected in accordance with law. Paragraph 9 of the writ-petition has been admitted that Mahadev Parshad owned 6.72.16 hectares of land of first quality under the Act of 1972. Paragraph 10 of the writ petition has been admitted, stating that no area owned by Mahadev Parshad was declared surplus under the Act of 1953 as well as under the Act of 1972 and, as such, Mahadev Parshad was a small landowner and that, therefore, no proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1953 as well as the Act of 1972. Paragraph 12 of the writ-petition is admitted that the sales were effected in favour of the petitioners on 8 6-1973 and 11-6-1973.

It has been further submitted in paragraph 22 of the written statement that Mahadev Parshad was a small landowner under the provisions of the Act of 1972 and no proceedings were required for determination of his area under the Act of 1972.

The following two issues raised by the Financial Commissioner do not arise in these writ-petitions : -

(i) Whether in view of sub-section (4) of the Section 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the sale-deeds, though registered, were void or not ?

(ii) Whether in view of the summary nature of the mutation proceedings, revenue officers were bound to attest mutations based on registered sale-deeds irrespective of the fact whether such sale-deeds were void or not ?

Admittedly, Mahadev Parshad was a small landowner under the provisions of the Act of 1953 as well as the Act of 1972. Therefore, both the above-mentioned points raised by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order, do not arise in the present cases and, therefore, the order (Anaexure P-12) is without jurisdiction.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we hold that, in mutation proceedings, a Revenue Officer should not go into the intricate questions and he should give effect to a registered sale-deed, irrespective of the fact whether the land owned by the vendor is surplus or not Proceedings in mutation cases are always of summary nature and confer no prima facie rights and, so the parties are always left to go to an appropriate civil Court in matters of serious disputes regarding the title etc. In our opinion, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade did the right thing in sanctioning the mutations in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the registered sale-deeds which have not been countermanded by any proper authority from a Court.

In view of the above mentioned discussion, we hold that the impugned order dated 6.4.1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, is without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. The writ petitions are allowed.