IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.________of 2019

Naini Jain …..Petitioner

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Rohtak & Anr.

...Respondents

INDEX

SrNo Particular Date Page Court

No. Fee
1. Urgent Form 01/07/2019
2. Civil Revision
Petition 01/07/2019
3. Affidavit
01/07/2019
4. Annexure P-1 (Suit) 02/07/2013
5. Annexure P-2 (Impugned 29/05/2019
order)
6. Power of Attorney 28/06/2019
Total court fee Rs.

Note: Similar case, if any: -Nil-

No Caveat has been received in this case

Chandigarh
Date:01.07.2019
(Dr. Deepak Jindal)
Advocate
P-809/2002
Counsel for the petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.________of 2019

Naini Jain aged 38 years W/o Sh. Vikas Jain S/o Sh.

Kulbhushan Jain resident of Old Anaj Mandi, Rohtak

through her general power of attorney Kulbhushan Jain.

……Petitioner

Versus

1. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, District

Rohtak, Rohtak – 124001

2. The Tehsildar cum Assistant Collector (1st

Grade), Rohtak - 124001

...Respondents

Chandigarh
Date:01.07.2019
(Dr. Deepak Jindal)
Advocate
 P-809/2002
Counsel for the
petitioner
 Civil Revision Petition under

Article 227 of the constituion of

India for setting aside the order

dated 29/05/2019 where by the

execution petition filed by the

petitioner has been dismissed;

And

Any other order or direction which

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present revision petition is being filed

for setting aside the order dated 29/05/2019 where by

the execution petition filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed.

2. That the facts of the present case is that a suit

had been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the

respondents seeking relief of mandatory injunction

directing the respondents to pass the necessary

Mutation in her favour, relating to the Sale Deed

mentioned in para no.2 to 5 of the plaint after

collecting from the petitioner/plaintiff whatever

fee/charges are required to be paid in this regard.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff purchased land measuring 1

Bigha 5 Biswa( Chahi/Barani) i.e. 6 Kanal 5 Marla from

Shamlat Agriculture Land in Khewat No. 2457 Min 2364

Min, Khata Nos. 4055, 3730 comprised in Khasra

Nos.6535(1-1), 17853/15220/6712(0-4) Kita 2, relating

to land of Khewat Nos. 1321, 3246, 1117, 1393, 1282,

1260, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1280 1285 situated in Mauza

Rohtak from Sh. Harnand S/o Sh. Munsi S/o Sh. Sewa Ram

resident of village Nasir Pur(Tehsil and District

Rohtak) and Smt. Sarita W/O Sh. Parbodh Chand and

Daughter of Sh. Sunder Lal Jain resident of Old Anaj

Mandi, Rohtak for a total consideration of Rs.

11,72,000/- vide sale deed No. 6843 dated 9.11.2006.

The suit property was purchased by the

petitioner/plaintiff through her General Power of

Attorney Shri Sunder Lal Jain S/o Sh. Anup Singh Jain,

on the strength of land revenue record maintained by

the respondent no.2 i.e Tehsildar cum Assistant

Collector Rohtak and duly endorsed and verified by

respondent no.1 whereas seller has been shown as owner

in possession of the land as well as having saleable

interest in the same. That the petitioner/plaintiff

approached the respondents no. 1 and 2 for getting the

relevant mutation sanctioned in her favour in the

relevant record on the basis of sale deed in question

as well as relevant papers like Jamabandi, Khasra

girdwari relating to the suit property. A copy of the

plaint is annexed as Annexure P-1. However, respondent

no.2 i.e. the Tehsildar refused to sanction the

relevant mutation in favour of plaintiff.

3. The Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2014 the suit

partly decreed the suit to the effect that the

respondents/defendants are hereby directed to sanction

mutation in favour of petitioner/plaintiff to the

extent of Khewat no. 2364/2221 Khatoni No. 3730/3609

Khasra No. 17853/15220/6712.

4. That the petitioner/plaintiff as well as the

respondents filed appeals against the judgment as

mentioned above of Ld. Trial Court dated 02.08.2014.

The ld. Ist Appellate Court vide a common judgment

dated 9.9.2016 disposed of the appeals filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff as well as the respondents.

5. That the ld. Ist Appellate Court has observed in

the judgment dated 9.9.2016 that it is not disputed

that petitioner-plaintiff Naini Jain has purchased land

measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas from Khasra no.6535 and 4

Biswas from Khasra no.6712 as per sale deed dated

9.11.2006. After the execution and registration of sale

deed, when the petitioner-plaintiff Naini Jain

approached the Revenue Officers, they did not get the

mutation of this land entered and sanctioned in her

favour as they took the ground that the suit property

belong to shamlat deh hasab-rajad arazi khewat and this

khewat has not been partitioned. Unless and until this

Khewat is partitioned, the revenue authority has no

right to get the mutation entered and sanctioned. The

Ld. Ist Appellate Court, Rohtak has relied upon the

case law in the case titled Kashmir Singh Versus State

of Haryana and others, 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 56

wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana

High Court that “a vendee of agricultural land is not

required to approach the Tehsildar or Patwari for

sanction of mutation except where some dispute arises.

Para 7.32 of the Manual read with Section 34, 35 and 37

of the Act place a statutory obligation on the revenue

officers to sanction a mutation when a registered sale

deed is forwarded to them. However, a disputed mutation

has to be sanctioned after hearing the parties

concerned to the dispute.” Moreover, it is well settled

principle of law that the mutation does not create any

right, title or interest and mutation is entered and

sanctioned only for the purpose of updating the revenue

record. Reliance has further been placed on the case

titled Supreme Singh Versus The Financial Commissioner

Revenue Punjab and others, 2011(1) Land.L.R. 280,

Chanan Singh Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-1,

Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2005(2) PLR 103 and

Sankalchan Jayachandbhai Patel Versus Vithalbhai

Jayachandbhai Patel, 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 565.

6. That the ld. Ist Appellate Court has further

observed in the judgement dated 09.09.2019 that when

the validity of the sale deed dated 9.11.2006 has not

been challenged by the vendor or any other person, so

in the opinion of this court, the Revenue Officers

cannot deny to mutate the estate of vendor Harnand etc.

who has sold the same by virtue of sale deed dated

9.11.2006. So far as the fact regarding share of

Harnand etc. in the joint Khewat and its being still

joint are concerned, in the opinion of this court, in

revenue record Harnand etc. vendor of plaintiff Naini

Jain has been shown as a co-sharer in the Khewat

no.6712, whereas in Khasra no.6535 he has been shown as

a Gair Marusi. No doubt, the appellant-plaintiff Naini

Jain has not placed on record any document showing that

her vendor Harnand has not sold the land beyond his

share but in the opinion of this court, the revenue

record remains in the custody of the respondents

revenue authorities and they have every opportunity to

get the share of Harnand etc. determined. They can

enter the mutation on the basis of sale deed and after

giving notice to Harnand etc., they can sanction the

mutation of the estate of Harnand, which he has sold to

the appellant-plaintiff as per sale deed dated

9.11.2006 after calculating the share of Harnand but a

blanket order refusing to enter and sanction the

mutation cannot be passed. In no manner, it can be said

that since the property purchased by the plaintiff

Naini Jain has not been partitioned, so no mutation can

be entered and sanctioned.

7. The ld. Ist Appellate Court has set aside the

findings of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak

regarding khasra no.6535 and the respondents-revenue

authorities have been directed to consider the case of

the petitioner/plaintiff for sanctioning of mutation of

the land purchased by her from Harnand etc. as per sale

deed dated 9.11.2006 in the aforesaid terms. The appeal

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff bearing no.152 of

2014 has been allowed with costs and original suit

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been decreed with

costs on the aforesaid terms by the ld. Ist Appellate

Court, Rohtak. The second appeal bearing no.153 of 2014

filed by the respondents has been dismissed with costs.

8. That the petitioner/plaintiff filed an execution

petition for implementing the judgment dated 09.09.2016

in the execution Court where by vide order dated

29.05.2019 passed by ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Rohtak the execution petition filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. A copy of the

impugned order dated 29/05/2019 has been annexed as

Annexure P-2. The order dated 29.05.2019 whereby the

execution petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff

has been dismissed is wrong, illegal and hence liable

to be set aside on the following grounds:-

(i).That the executing Court i.e. ld. Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Rohtak has ignored that the

judgment-debtors i.e the respondents cannot partly

implement the decree of the court as per their

convenience, particularly so when the Decree passed

by the ld. appellate Court has already merged with the

earlier Decree passed by the ld. Trial Court and that

the part of the Decree passed By the Ld. Trial Court

has already been executed by the respondents.

(ii) That the Ld. Executing Court also erred in law and

fact in ignoring yet another important fact that the

earlier Decree passed by the ld. Trial Court with

regard to the same suit-matter has already been duly

executed by the respondents in earlier Execution

Petition dated 23.08.2014. That execution was with

regard to land comprised in Khasra No.6712 and the

respondents raised similar type of objections in that

Execution Petition also; but the same were not

entertained by the Executing Court and consequently its

mutation was sanctioned by the respondents as MUTATION

NO.18918 dated 05.10.2016 and the relevant Execution

Petition was dismissed as satisfied by the then

executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rohtak

vide its order dated 07.10.2016. The respondents have

not filed any Civil Revision or objection of any type

either before the Hon’ble High Court or before any

other Revenue Authority against that Execution Petition

dated 23.08.2014. In view of these peculiar

circumstances of the case, the respondents cannot now

take the similar type of objections in the present

Execution Petition; particularly so when their appeal

filed by them against the same Decree passed by the ld.

Trial Court has been dismissed by the common Judgement

and Decree passed by ld. Appellate Court allowing the

appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissing, at the

same time, the Cross Appeal filed by the respondents.

The objections taken by the respondents in the present

Execution Petition are thus barred by the principles of

resjudicata. Having sanctioned the mutation relating to

Khasra No.6712 which is the subject matter of the same

suit, the respondents now cannot back out and refuse to

sanction mutation with regard to Khasra No.6535.

(iii). That the executing Court i.e. ld. Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Rohtak has ignored the well

established proposition of law that the executing court

cannot go behind the decree to record a finding then

the one recorded by the court and it is obligatory to

the court to execute the decree and give effect to the

judgment. Reliance can be placed upon case laws titled

as Haryana Vidyut, Parsaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs.

Gulshan Lal & Ors. 2010 (1) SCC (L&S) 245 and Dina Nath

v. Yash Pal 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 105.

(iv). That the Ld. Executing Court exceeded its power

and grossly erred in law in passing the impugned order

dated 29.05.2019 which tantamount to striking down the

Judgement and Decree passed by ld. Appellate Court

allowing the Civil Appeal No.152 of 2015 filed by the

petitioner and dismissing, at the same time, the Cross

Appeal No.53 of 2015 titled by the respondent no. 1.

Both these appeals arose out of the common Judgement

and Decree dated 02.08.2014 passed by ld. Civil Judge

(Jr. Div.), Rohtak in Civil Suit filed by the

petitioner.

(v) That the Ld. Executing Court grossly faltered under

law and in fact assumed the powers of an appellate

Court, while dismissing the Execution Petition of the

petitioner as if it was acting as an appellate Court

against the judgment of appellate Court Ld. Additional

District Judge, Rohtak who allowed the Civil Appeal

No.52 of 2015 filed by the petitioner. This has

resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner.

(vi) That the executing court i.e. ld. Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Rohtak grossly erred in law in

holding that the Decree Holder cannot claim

indefeasible right to get the mutation sanctioned in

her favour on the strength of the impugned Sale Deed

and that the issue with regard to the title of the

petitioner in this regard was still open. The Ld.

Executing Court thus grossly erred in law and sat to

decide the question of “Validity of impugned Sale Deed”

afresh as a Trial Court. The Ld. Executing Court

miserably failed to appreciate that the respondents

never challenged the validity of the Sale Deed and the

ld. Executing Court has clearly ignored the crystal

clear findings of the ld. Appellate Court in this

regard. The petitioner refers to para no. 16 of the

appellate Court judgment which reads as under :-

“In the instant case, when the validity of

the sale deed dated 9.11.2006 has not been

challenged by the vendor or any other person,

so in the opinion of this court, the Revenue

Officers cannot deny to mutate the estate of

vendor Harnand etc. who has sold the same by

virtue of sale deed dated 9.11.2006”

(vii) That the Ld. Executing Court also further grossly

erred in law in wrongly relying upon the Judgement of

this Hon’ble Court in the case titled as Gram

Panchayat, Kalesar Vs. State of Haryana 2014(4) RCR

Civil 29. This Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is

clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the

facts of the present case on the following, amongst

other, grounds :-

a. The relied upon case was related to “SHAMLAT

DEH” while the case in hand relates to “SHAMLAT

PANA HAR DAIRY THOK JATAN”. “Shamlat Deh”

always vest in Village Panchayat while “Shamlat

Thok Jatan Etc.” does not.

b. In the relied upon case the ownership of the

land had already been recorded in the name of

the Gram Panchayat right from day one; while in

 the present case it has been recorded in the

names of its Shareholders and Harnand is the

sole shareholder in the land.

c. In the relied upon case it was a case of

“Ownership and Title” of the land in which Gram

Panchayat itself was a plaintiff; while this is

not the aspect in the case in hand.

d. In the relied upon case, the proprietary rights

of the land were still to be decided by the

Civil Court in a Civil Suit; while in the

present case, the matter is a Civil Execution

and nobody has raised the question of title.

e. The relied upon case related to land situated

in a village while in the present case, the

impugned land is situated in a town.

(viii). That the executing court i.e. ld. Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Rohtak further grossly erred in

law and in fact while observing that “it is difficult

to ascertain as to how much share could be given to

the vendor the decree-holder” and giving thereby an

adverse finding against the petitioner. The ld. Court

totally ignored the observations made by the Ld.

Appellate Court in this regard which is as under (para

17):-
 “No doubt, the appellant-plaintiff Naini

Jain has not placed on record any

document showing that her vendor Harnand

has not sold the land beyond his share

but in the opinion of this court, the

revenue record remains in the custody

of the respondents revenue authorities

and they have every opportunity to

get the share of Harnand etc.

determined. They can enter the mutation

on the basis of sale deed and after

giving notice to Harnand etc., they can

sanction the mutation of the estate of

Harnand, which he has sold to the

appellant-plaintiff as per sale deed

dated 9.11.2006 after calculating the

share of Harnand but a blanket order

refusing to enter and sanction the

mutation cannot be passed. In no

manner, it can be said that since the

property purchased by the plaintiff

Naini Jain has not been partitioned, so

no mutation can been entered and

sanctioned.”

Therefore, in no manner, it can be said that since

the property purchased by the plaintiff Naini Jain has

not been partitioned, so no mutation can be entered and

sanctioned.

(ix) That the executing i.e. ld. Civil Judge (Junior

Division), failed to appreciate the established

proposition of law that when a Sale Deed has duly been

executed, the respondents were under a legal obligation

to pass a mutation in favour of the purchaser on the

strength of that Sale Deed in terms of Para 7.32 of the

Land Manual read with Section 34, 35 and 37 of the Land

Revenue Act. The Ld. executing Court further erred in

law while ignoring the observations made by the Ld. Ist

Appellate Court, Rohtak that it is not disputed that

petitioner-plaintiff Naini Jain has purchased land

measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas from Khasra no.6535 and 4

Biswas from Khasra no.6712 as per sale deed dated

9.11.2006 and that when she approached the Revenue

Authorities for getting the relevant Mutation recorded

in her favour, they refused to accede to her request

without any basis. The Ruling cited by the Ld. 1 st

Appellate Court i.e. Kashmir Singh Versus State of

Haryana and others, 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 56 has also

been totally ignored by the Ld. Executing Court wherein

it has been held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

that “a vendee of agricultural land is not required to

approach the Tehsildar or Patwari for sanction of

mutation except where some dispute arises. Para 7.32 of

the Manual read with Section 34, 35 and 37 of the Act

place a statutory obligation on the revenue officers to

sanction a mutation when a registered sale deed is

forwarded to them.”

(x). That the executing Court i.e. ld. Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Rohtak has not appreciated the

findings of the ld. 1st appellate Court, Rohtak that

it is not disputed that petitioner-plaintiff Naini Jain

has purchased land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas from

Khasra no.6535 and 4 Biswas from Khasra no.6712 as per

sale deed dated 9.11.2006. After the execution and

registration of sale deed, when the petitioner-

plaintiff Naini Jain approached the Revenue Officers,

they did not get the mutation of this land entered and

sanctioned in her favour as the suit property belong to

shamlat deh hasab-rajad arazi khewat and this khewat

has not been partitioned. Unless and until this Khewat

is partitioned, the revenue authority has no right to

get the mutation entered and sanctioned. The Ld. Ist

Appellate Court, Rohtak has relied upon the case law in

the case titled Kashmir Singh Versus State of Haryana

and others, 2011(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 56 wherein it has

been held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that

“a vendee of agricultural land is not required to

approach the Tehsildar or Patwari for sanction of

mutation except where some dispute arises. Para 7.32 of

the Manual read with Section 34, 35 and 37 of the Act

place a statutory obligation on the revenue officers to

sanction a mutation when a registered sale deed is

forwarded to them. However, a disputed mutation has to

be sanctioned after hearing the parties concerned to

the dispute.” Moreover, it is well settled principle of

law that the mutation does not create any right, title

or interest and mutation is entered and sanctioned only

for the purpose of updating the revenue record.

Reliance has further been placed on the case titled

Supreme Singh Versus The Financial Commissioner Revenue

Punjab and others, 2011(1) Land.L.R. 280, Chanan Singh

Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-1, Punjab,

Chandigarh and others, 2005(2) PLR 103 and Sankalchan

Jayachandbhai Patel Versus Vithalbhai Jayachandbhai

Patel, 1997(1) RCR (Civil) 565. That the ld. Ist

Appellate Court has further observed in the judgement

dated 09.09.2019 that when the validity of the sale

deed dated 9.11.2006 has not been challenged by the

vendor or any other person, so in the opinion of this

court, the Revenue Officers cannot deny to mutate the

estate of vendor Harnand etc. who has sold the same by

virtue of sale deed dated 9.11.2006. So far as the fact

regarding share of Harnand etc. in the joint Khewat and

its being still joint are concerned, in the opinion of

this court, in revenue record Harnand etc. vendor of

plaintiff Naini Jain has been shown as a co-sharer in

the Khewat no.6712, whereas in Khasra no.6535 he has

been shown as a Gair Marusi. No doubt, the petitioner-

plaintiff Naini Jain has not placed on record any

document showing that her vendor Harnand has not sold

the land beyond his share but in the opinion of this

court, the revenue record remains in the custody of the

respondents revenue authorities and they have every

opportunity to get the share of Harnand etc.

determined. They can enter the mutation on the basis of

sale deed and after giving notice to Harnand etc., they

can sanction the mutation of the estate of Harnand,

which he has sold to the appellant-plaintiff as per

sale deed dated 9.11.2006 after calculating the share

of Harnand but a blanket order refusing to enter and

sanction the mutation cannot be passed. In no manner,

it can be said that since the property purchased by the

plaintiff Naini Jain has not been partitioned, so no

mutation can be entered and sanctioned.

(xi).That the ld. Ist Appellate Court has set aside the

findings of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rohtak

regarding khasra no.6535 and the respondents-revenue

authorities have been directed to consider the case of

the petitioner/plaintiff for sanctioning of mutation of

the land purchased by her from Harnand etc. as per sale

deed dated 9.11.2006 in the aforesaid terms. The appeal

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff bearing no.152 of

2014 has been allowed with costs and original suit

filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been decreed with

costs on the aforesaid terms by the ld. Ist Appellate

Court, Rohtak. The second appeal bearing no.153 of 2014

filed by the respondents has been dismissped with

costs.

(xii). That the ld. Executing Court has ignored the

law laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs.

Gulshan Lal & Ors. 2009(13) SCC 354 that even if the

the decree passéd by the Court granting relief is not

valid, even then the executing court has to execute the

decree as it is. The executing Court cannot go behind

the decree.

(xiii). That the ld. Executing Court has not

appreciated that the decree under execution has

attained finality. The decision of reversal of trial

court decree by the ld. Ist Appellate Court decree has

not been challenged by the respondents in the next

appellate court. Moreover they cannot file their

objections to the Ist appellate Court decree in the

executing Court.

(xiv). That in view of the above, the ld. executing

Court i.e the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak
ought to have passed directions to the respondents to
sanction mutations in the aforesaid terms.

9. That no such or similar petition has earlier been

filed by the petitioner against the impugned order or

pending before the Hon’ble High Court or the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India.

 It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this

revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order

dated 29/05/2019 by the executing Court i.e the ld

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak be set aside.

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

It is further prayed that the petitioner may

kindly be exempted from the filing the certified copies

of Annexures. However, the true typed copy of the same

is being appended for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble

Court.

Date:09.07.2019
(Dr. Deepak Jindal)
Advocate
P-809/2002
Counsel for the petitioner
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.________of 2019

Naini Jain ……Petitioner

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner & Another .....Respondents

Affidavit of Sh. Kulbhushan

Jain resident of Old Anaj
Mandi, Rohtak

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as under:

1. That the contents of the petition have been read

over to the deponent and the same have been understood

by the deponent.

2. That the contents of petition are true and correct

to the knowledge of deponent. No part of it is false

nothing material has kept concealed therein.

3. That the petitioner has not filed any similar

petition on the same cause of action before this

Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India

Chandigarh
Dated: 01/07/2019 Deponent

VERIFICATION:

Verified para no.1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true

and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it
is false and nothing has been concealed therein.

Chandigarh
Dated: 01/07/2019 Deponent

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.________of 2019

Naini Jain …..Petitioner

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Rohtak & Anr.

...Respondents

Court Fees

Chandigarh
Date:01.07.2019
(Dr. Deepak Jindal)
Advocate
 P-809/2002
Counsel for the petitioner