- (1.) State counsel is not aware whether the costs, in this case, has been deposited. The Registry reports that no intimation has been received in this regard. Today also, State counsel is not having brief. This position, therefore, cannot be accepted. The decision cannot wait for this and the case is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
(2.) The petitioner claims to have purchased land measure 3 bighas 16 biswas from Karamjit Kaur and Jaswant Kaur vide registered sale deed by paying consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. This was as per jamabandi 1997-98. On 07.06.2004, the petitioner applied for sanction of mutation on the basis of registered sale deed. The private respondent, however, raised objection. It is alleged that the sellers have sold land in excess of their share. The Assistant Collector has declined to sanction mutation and accepted the objection of private respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector on 19.10.2005. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 14.05.2008. The Financial Commissioner has also dismissed the revision on 06.07.2010. The petitioner claims that the revenue authorities are bound to sanction the mutation on the basis of registered sale deed until and unless the sale deed is set aside by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
(3.) Notice of motion, in this case, was issued only when the petitioner had filed affidavit to show that he had purchased the share of Karamjit Kaur and Jaswant Kaur as was recorded in the jamabandies. The plea by the petitioner, accordingly, is that he had bought the share of Karamjit Kaur and Jaswant Kaur, as per the entries entered in the revenue record. As per the counsel, the petitioner cannot be attributed with any knowledge that he had purchased the land, which was sold in excess of his share by seller.;