- (1.) When this petition was filed before this Court to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner consigning the mutation proceedings, this Court felt that multiplicity of litigations ought to be avoided. After making reference to large number of precedents this Court noted down the ratio of law emerging therefrom and noticed that mutation proceedings are summary proceedings in the nature and that any observation, finding or decision in the mutation proceedings shall not be treated as res judicata and shall have no adverse effect in a regular suit involving question of titled and possession. In these cases as noticed in order dated 06.09.2011, it has also been observed that if civil suit involving question of title is already pending, then case of sanction of mutation should be kept in abeyance in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab,2007 4 PunLR 638. It is noted that the mutation has to be carried out strictly as per the judgment/decree in the suit and that in the meanwhile entry should be made to the effect that mutation is contested between parties or otherwise and shall be carried out as per the final judgment of the civil Court so that prospective buyer can not be cheated and misled by any of the party, on the basis of mutation entered.
(2.) Having noticed so, this Court was of the view that to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure low cost and speedy justice, it was desirable that the State of Punjab and Haryana may be put to notice to think about carrying out amendment in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, to the effect that if mutation is not contested, it shall be ordered within a fixed time frame-work and if mutation is contested and disputed by rival groups rival claiming their respective title, the Revenue Officer shall direct them to approach the Civil Court to get their respective titled decided and in that event, no further appeal or revision would lie to the higher revenue authorities. A copy of this order passed by this Court on 6.9.2011 was supplied to the counsel appearing for both the States.
(3.) Reply on behalf of the States has been filed.;