Civil Court Can Direct Revenue Officers to Enter Mutation – No Bar under Section 158(2)(vi) of Punjab Land Revenue Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Suit for Mandatory Injunction is Maintainable When Patwari and Revenue Officer Fail to Perform Statutory Duty”, Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain) dismissed a second appeal. The Court upheld the decree in favour of the plaintiffs directing the revenue authorities to incorporate mutations on the basis of registered sale deeds, rejecting the defendant’s objections of jurisdiction, limitation, and possession.

The dispute arose from agricultural land measuring 8 kanals in Village Asadpur, District Sonepat. Originally owned by Ishwar, Bhopal Singh, and Piari (widow of Chander), defendants 4 to 6 sold the land to one Ram Singh vide sale deed dated 15.01.1975 (Ex.P2). Ram Singh, in turn, sold it to the plaintiffs through sale deed dated 17.06.1976 (Ex.P1).

The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 (Revenue Officer and Halqa Patwari) to record mutation in their favour. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit, finding the plaintiffs to be owners in possession. Defendant No. 5 (Bhopal Singh) then approached the High Court in second appeal.

Jurisdictional Objection – Civil Court Not Barred

The appellant argued that the suit was barred under Section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which excludes Civil Court jurisdiction in matters concerning entries in revenue records. The High Court rejected this, holding:

“The plaintiffs have not filed the suit for correction of entry in the register of mutations but for a direction to the authorities to perform their obligation to make entries of rights acquired through purchase. Such a suit is clearly maintainable under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

Thus, failure of Patwari or Revenue Officer to act under Section 34 of the 1887 Act can be remedied through a civil suit for mandatory injunction.

On Delay – No Limitation Bar

The defendant further contended that the plaintiffs approached the authorities after nearly 30 years, and the claim should therefore be barred by limitation. Justice Jain rejected this submission:

“Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any provision from the Limitation Act, 1963 which bars the plaintiffs from filing the present suit… Since no statutory provision has been quoted, this argument is rejected.”

On Possession – Mutation Can Be Entered

Another objection was that possession was never delivered, and thus mutation could not be sanctioned. This was also dismissed. The Court noted that evidence on record established delivery of possession at the time of the sale, observing:

“It has come on record in the evidence of the plaintiffs and their witnesses that possession has already been delivered to them by defendant No. 3 when the sale deed was executed and they are in possession of the suit land.”

The High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the lower Appellate Court’s decree directing entry of mutation in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the 1976 sale deed.

Justice Jain concluded: “I do not find any merit in the submissions made by counsel for the appellant nor any question of law much-less substantial is involved in this appeal for the purpose of taking a view different from that taken by the lower Appellate Court.”

The ruling reiterates that revenue officials are bound by statutory duty to record mutations upon acquisition of rights by sale. When they fail, civil courts can compel performance through mandatory injunctions. The judgment also clarifies that civil jurisdiction is not barred by Section 158(2)(vi) when the relief sought is not correction of entries but enforcement of statutory obligation.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2014