GURTEG SINGH vs FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS — CWP/14626/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010687412026

e-Filing Number

22-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/24603/2026

Filing Date

22-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/14626/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger

Category

18.11 - LAND LAWS S.B. ( 448 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GURTEG SINGH

    Adv. LUPIL GUPTA

  2. 2.Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab and ors

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS

  2. 2.Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab and ors

  3. 3.Commissioner

  4. 4.Collector PCS

  5. 5.Assistant Collector

  6. 6.Harjit Kaur

  7. 7.Karnail Singh

  8. 8.Surinder Kaur

  9. 9.Darshna Devi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsh BungerView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab dismissed the writ petition challenging the inheritance mutation of deceased Lakhwinder Kaur's property in favor of respondent Harjit Kaur. The court upheld the Financial Commissioner's decision, finding that mutation proceedings only update revenue records and don't adjudicate title or family relationships—matters reserved for civil courts. The petitioner's failure to timely challenge the foundational mutation at Village Salempur rendered his later challenge to the Village Boha mutation ineffective. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14626/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab dismissed the writ petition challenging the inheritance mutation of deceased Lakhwinder Kaur's property in favor of respondent Harjit Kaur. The court upheld the Financial Commissioner's decision, finding that mutation proceedings only update revenue records and don't adjudicate title or family relationships—matters reserved for civil courts. The petitioner's failure to timely challenge the foundational mutation at Village Salempur rendered his later challenge to the Village Boha mutation ineffective. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case