***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) --

CM-7939-LPA-2025

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA-3193-2025 (O&M)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed in CWP-17031-2025 by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the challenge raised by the appellant to the mutation entered in favour of respondent No.5 – Society on the basis of sale deed dated 24.06.1966, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the said mutation has been entered in favour of respondent No.5 – Society on the basis of the sale deed dated 24.06.1966 which was alleged to have been executed 40 years back and without inquiring into the validity of the said sale deed, the said mutation was done in favour of respondent No.5 – Society and that too behind the back of the appellant, which fact has not been appreciated by the Financial Commissioner as well as by the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Hence, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside and the order dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, may kindly be held valid.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. The first question which arise for consideration is that whether the appellant has any locus standi to challenge the said mutation, which has been entered into by the Revenue Authorities on the basis of sale deed dated 24.06.1966 in favour of respondent No.5 – Society.

5. It may be noticed that there is no challenge to the said sale deed at the hands of the appellants even as of now. Once, there is a sale deed and the Revenue Authorities have accepted the said sale deed so as to enter the mutation, the appellant cannot raise any grievance qua the mutation by signing out the same. The challenge in the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner as well as before the learned Single Judge is only qua the mutation which has been entered into the favour of respondent No.5 – Society on the basis of which, the Society was claiming the ownership of the land in question and the said mutation is only a consequent to the sale deed dated 24.06.1966.

6. The Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as the said order was only passed on the ground that the appellant has not been given an opportunity of hearing before the mutation was entered into the favour of respondent No.5 – Society.

7. It may be noticed that as of now or even before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, there was no challenge to the sale deed dated 24.06.1966 on the basis of which, the mutation was entered. Hence, the locus of the appellant was not even looked into while passing the order dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-7) by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, which order is sought to be upheld by the appellant.

8. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Revenue Authorities should have looked into the aspect that whether, after a period of 40 years of the finalization/registration of sale deed, the mutation can be entered in favour of respondent No.5 – Society.

9. It may be noticed that once the Revenue Authorities have raised no objection qua the aspect of entering into the mutation, hence, the appellant herein has no locus to challenge the same.

10. Further, even the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, a finding has been recorded that the petitioner is not disputing the existence of the sale deed dated 24.06.1966 in favour of respondent No.5 – Society. Once, the said fact is not being disputed, entering the mutation in favour of respondent No.5 – Society by the Revenue Authorities so as to record the Society the owner of such property, which they acquired on the basis of the sale deed dated 24.06.1966, clearly goes to show the non-existence of locus of appellants herein and the same needs no interference at the hands of this Court.

11. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No.5 – Society had filed a civil suit for declaration that they are the owners of the land in question, which suit was dismissed as withdrawn, which act begs for consideration of this Court as the same shows that there is cloudlet on the aspect of ownership of lane in question.

12. It may be noticed that once there is a sale deed, mere seeking declaration on the basis of the said sale deed, which suit for declaration was withdrawn, must be based on the advise that there is no need for filing of suit for declaration once there is a sale deed in favour, unless and until the same is disputed and in the present case, the said sale deed dated 24.06.1966 has not been disputed even by the appellant and therefore, withdrawal of the said civil suit will not give any right to the appellants or will create any hindrance against respondent No.5 – Society to claim the ownership of the land in question on the basis of the sale deed.

13. No other argument has been raised.

14. Keeping in view of the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********