Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16738 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 404
Decided on: 09.05.2022
Present:
Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 34 -- Mutation on the basis of natural succession -- Will not considered by Patwari – Remedy of appeal -- Administrative action against Patwari – Writ jurisdiction -- Complaint to Deputy Commissioner for taking administrative action against Patwari -- Financial Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action, yet, no action has been taken – Held, if, the Deputy Commissioner is not complying with the orders, the petitioner should approach the Financial Commissioner – High Court does not exercise jurisdiction over administrative directions issued by the Financial Commissioner – So far as, the grievance regarding sanction of mutation is concerned, remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner – Writ dismissed.
(Para 1-5)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioner is aggrieved because a mutation in respect of property of her father has been entered and sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. She holds a Will in her favour and the same has not been considered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Patwari had no jurisdiction to sanction the mutation as it was disputed by the petitioner. The matter should have been referred to the Assistant Collector First Grade. Further, it is stated that a complaint has been made to the Deputy Commissioner for taking administrative action against the concerned Patwari, but nothing was done and thus, a complaint was filed to the Financial Commissioner who directed the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action. Yet, no action has been taken.
3. So far as, administrative action against the Patwari is concerned, the Financial Commissioner has already directed the Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate action and if, the concerned Deputy Commissioner is not complying with the orders of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner should approach the Financial Commissioner and not this High Court. This Court does not exercise jurisdiction over administrative directions issued by the Financial Commissioner.
4. So far as, the grievance regarding sanction of mutation is concerned, remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner and thus, I refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal for redressal of her grievance.
Petition dismissed.
********