Karnail Singh and others vs Rattan Singh

B. B. Mahajan, F.C.

This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 26th July, 1983, of the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, vide which he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 20 kanals 12 marlas from one Pritam Singh vide registered saledeed dated 12.4.1978. The purchased land included 7 kanals 6 marlas of land which was in undisputed ownership of Pritam Singh and another 13 kanals 6 marlas of land which was recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewatdar. In other words, this portion of sold land was Shamilat Deh but Pritam Singh possessed the same as a cosharer in the village Shamlat. When the mutation was put up for sanction the respondent objected to the sale on the plea that Pritam Singh had no right to sell the Shamlat Deh as his share in village. Shamlat was much less than the area sold to the petitioners and he had already sold his share in the past to other persons. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kapurthala vide his order dated 30th November, 1979, accordingly sanctioned the mutation of sale for only 7 kanals 6 marlas of land which was in the ownership of Pritam Singh and rejected the sale of land from Shamlat. Aggrieved against the above order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kapurthala, who dismissed it on 6th May, 1980. Thereon, the petitioners, went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, who vide his order dated 26th July, 1983 rejected it and this order has now been impugned before me.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had not sanctioned mutation in regard to transfer of 13 kanals 6 marlas of land out of Shamlat Deh as he found that the land in question was not under possession of the vendor Wadhawa Singh from whom the petitioners had purchased the land and the cosharers of Wadhawa Singh had already sold land in excess of their joint shares in the Shamlat Deh. This finding has been concurred in by the Collector and the Commissioner. On this point of fact, the petitioners have not either before the Collector or the Commissioner produced any evidence or even controverted it in the present revision petition. Their main contention is that since the sale was through a registered deed, it should have been given effect to in the mutation proceedings and in case the vendor had sold land in excess of his share, that could be challenged only in the partition proceedings. I am afraid this is not the correct legal position. The counsel for the petitioners could not show any authority in support of the view that the revenue authorities must sanction the mutation in accordance with the registered saledeed even if the vendor purports to sell land which is not in his ownership and which he is not entitled to sell. The Assistant Collector had correctly sanctioned the mutation only in respect of the land which was under ownership of the vendor and excluded the land which was a part of the Shamlat Deh and which he was not entitled to sell because it was not in his possession and his cosharers had already sold more than their shares in the Shamlat.

In the revision petition it has also been urged that the respondent had no locus standi to object to the sanctioning of mutation in their favour on the basis of the registered saledeeds. This point had not been taken in the Memorandum of Appeal before the Collector and could not, therefore, be now taken in revision. Even otherwise, in mutation proceedings the revenue authorities have to determine, the entry which should be correctly made and have to consider for that purpose even the objection by a stranger. No question of locus standi is, therefore, involved in such cases.

The petition has thus no merit. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Announced.