Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16770 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 444
Decided on: 27.05.2022
Present:
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG, Haryana
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Writ jurisdiction – Contention that Tehsildar has refused to enter a mutation, even though, civil proceedings have been finalized, thus, the concerned official needs to be hauled up -- Only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty as stipulated in Section 34 of the Act, 1887 -- If, an erroneous order has been passed, it can be challenged in accordance with law -- Writ petition disposed of.
(Para 1-4)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Learned State counsel submits that pending representation has been decided and order has been passed on 18.05.2022. Thus, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the order aforementioned is contemptuous in nature. The Tehsildar has refused to enter a mutation, even though, civil proceedings have been finalized. Thus, the concerned official needs to be hauled up.
3. The argument is not acceptable. The only prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty as stipulated in Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The same has been done. If, an erroneous order has been passed, it can be challenged in accordance with law.
4. No further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********