Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21477 = 2026:PHHC:135065
Decided on: 18.09.2026
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Jasneen Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Nishtha Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. D.S. Gandhi, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Anand Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.7.
***
Mutation -- Review and cancellation of mutation -- Deputy Commissioner granting sanction without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner -- Violation of principles of natural justice -- Sanction and consequential order cannot be sustained.
***
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 227 -- Mutation proceedings -- Review and cancellation of mutation -- Deputy Commissioner granting sanction to review mutation without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner -- Order granting sanction and consequential order cannot be sustained -- Deputy Commissioner granted liberty to pass order afresh after hearing both parties -- Parties directed to appear before Deputy Commissioner -- Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
(Paras 3-7)
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) –
1. By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 27.08.2024, whereby mutation bearing No.93400 was reviewed and cancelled on 27.09.2024 (P-19) by the Tehsildar, after taking sanction from the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ludhiana.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of granting sanction on 27.08.2024, Deputy Commissioner did not hear the petitioner.
3. Mr. D.S. Gandhi, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent No.7 to contend that the Tehsildar passed the order in detail after hearing both the parties. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the sanction was granted by the Deputy Commissioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and the order passed by Tehsildar is based upon such sanction as granted by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Counsel for the State on the basis of the record, admits that the Deputy Commissioner while granting sanction to review the mutation, did not grant any opportunity to the petitioner.
5. In view thereof, this Court finds that the order dated 27.08.2024 and the consequential order cannot be sustained.
6. However, liberty is granted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana to pass order afresh after hearing both the parties. Parties shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana on 15.10.2026.
7. Disposed off, accordingly.
Order accordingly.
********