SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6086 of 2000. D/d. 30.10.2000.

Chattar Pal - Appellant

Versus

Mandir Thakurji and others - Respondents

Punjab Land Revenue Act, Sections 34 to 37 - Mutation of land - Assistant Collector not justified in ordering mutation relying on certain findings of Civil Court without applying his independent mind to materials on record - Mutating Authority required to find out the person in lawful possession of property on the date of his considering the application - Matter remitted to Assistant Collector to consider the question and dispose it of on the basis of materials to be produced by the parties.

[Para 4]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the Revenue Authorities in a mutation proceeding which order stood affirmed by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant.

3. The Assistant Collector, who was the original authority, granted mutation of the land in favour of the respondent by his order dated 26.7.1994 on the basis of a finding of the Civil Court as to the illegality of the lease which suit itself had been dismissed. Against the said order the present appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, he moved the revisional authority. The revisional authority also dismissed the revision and as such he assailed the order unsuccessfully before the High Court in a writ petition.

4. The sole question for consideration before us is whether the Assistant Collector was justified in ordering mutation in favour of the respondent without applying his independent mind to the materials on record relying upon certain findings of the Civil Court when the suit itself had already stood dismissed. The mutating authority is required to find out who was in lawful possession of the property on the date of his considering the application and that being the position and the said mutating authority not having applied his mind to the materials on record, the impugned order of the Assistant Collector dated 26.7.1994 cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the said order of the Assistant Collector as well as the appellate and revisional order therefrom and also the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the mutating authority, the Assistant Collector, to reconsider the question and dispose it of on the basis of materials to be produced by the parties claiming mutation of the land in question. The said Assistant Collector would do well in disposing of the mutation proceedings within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order.

5. The civil appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Appeal accepted.