Bachana Ram v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.10747 of 2021 Date of Decision:- 19.09.2022 BACHANA RAM ....Petitioner vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....Respondents *** BEFORE :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL *** Present:- Mr.M.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*** Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 had filed an application for entry of mutation of inheritance of Banarasi Dass son of Agna Mal. The application was allowed and mutation was sanctioned. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal but without success. Further, revisions have also failed and, thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in possession for a long period of time and accordingly, he should have been heard before sanctioning the mutation. Since he was not heard, it has resulted in violation of Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Section 34 aforementioned only stipulates that if a person acquires any right/title in respect of land, the Halqa Patwari shall record the same in his register of mutations upon the fact being brought to his notice. It nowhere provides for grant of an opportunity of hearing to a person in possession. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he possesses some right/title in the land in dispute Thus, the argument is misconceived and is rejected.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. September 19, 2022 ( SUDHIR MITTAL) poonam JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No POONAM RATHORE 2022.09.20 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document