Ajaib Singh vs Sodargar Singh

S.R. Bunger, F.C.

The present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 25.3.1994, passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, in a case of mutation regarding sale of land, with his recommendation, that, the impugned orders be set aside, as per his reference dated 17.6.1996.

The facts of this case are, that, vide registered sale deed dated 8.11.1991, Balbir Singh s/o Babu Singh, resident of village Dhanaulla Kalan, Tehsil Barnala, district Sangrur, had sold land measuring 7 Kanals 10 Marlas, comprised in Khata No. 940/2011, situate at village Dhanaulla Kalan, in favour of Dial Singh, Ajaib Singh, Lal Singh and Pal Singh sons of Nahar Singh, in equal shares. Mutation No. 6432 was entered by the halqa patwari, which was rejected by the P.G.O.cumA.C. Ist Grade, Sangrur, vide her order dated 29.10.1993. The other vicissitudes with regard to this mutation are mentioned in this order of the A.C. Ist Grade; and, may be referred to, if necessary, with a view to fully appreciate the background of this case.

Aggrieved by this order, Ajaib Singh etc., had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sangrur, who had also rejected the same vide his order dated 25.03.1994. Still aggrieved by this order, Ajaib Singh etc., had filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, vide his reference dated 17.6.1996. The operative part of this reference reads as follows :

"I find that the arguments advanced by the petitioner are strong and convincing. It is only a writing mistake that details of total holding and shares were not mentioned in the said sale deed. By implication even the respondent admits 1/4 share in the balance holding but is only objecting to the sale of specific khasra numbers. It is established law that a coowner can sell even specific khasra numbers if they are in exclusive possession and are not more than his specific share in the total holding. The issue about the redemption of land is very clear in the sale deed. Therefore both the lower courts have committed mistake in not accepting the plea of the petitioner. The revision petition is therefore recommended to the learned Financial Commissioner for setting aside the impugned orders."

3A. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the Ld. counsel for respondent No. 1 have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present revision petition has no merit and the name deserves to be rejected.

At the outset, it may be pointed out, that, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), was not well advised while reporting this case, because, his recommendation is vague, nonspeaking and is rather confused. The fact remains, that, as per the relevant Jamabandi, the total area of two khasra numbers, comprised in Khata No. 940/2011, is 14 Kanals and 16 Marlas and in this land, Balbir Singh s/o Babu Singh owns only 1/4 share and the remaining 3/4 share is owned by other cosharers. However, as per the registered sale deed, Balbir Singh had sold land measuring 7 kanals and 10 Marlas, out of the said khasra numbers, which apparently, shows, that, he had sold more land than his due share in the jointland. The plea taken, in disposing of the said area, that the said land was in the exclusive cultivating possession of the vendorBalbir Singh, does not stand substantiated from the entries in the revenue record. Fully appreciating the facts of this case, the A.C. Ist Grade, Sangrur, had rightly rejected the mutation No. 6432, vide her order dated 29.10.1993; and, an appeal filed against this order by the present petitioners, was rightly rejected by the District Collector, Sangrur, vide his order dated 25.3.1994.

The orders passed by these two officers do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which may call for interference at the revisional stage. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, has chosen to report this case, on the grounds, which are untenable. It is not the duty of the Revenue Officers to fillinblanks; and, they are supposed to give effect to the clearly established facts in the revenue record. Where the entries incorporated in the deeds do not tally with the entries in the revenue record, and are at variance, the Revenue Officers are not supposed to accept such deeds and to incorporate the same in the revenue record.

In view of the above discussion, the present reference is hereby declined and the revision petition is rejected.

Announced.