Ram Bhushan Das vs Mandir Sudhar Committee, Rahon

K.S. Janjua, F.C.

This revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, is directed against the order (22.5.1989) of Commissioner Jalandhar Division. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order (31.12.1987) passed by he Collector, Jalandhar was upheld as the petitioner failed to explain as to why no action was taken by him against the mutation order for 23 years i.e. 1962 to 1985. In the jamabandi for the year 196061 of village Rahon an area measuring 117 kanals 6 marlas was recorded as ownership of one Sital Dass chela Ram Dass chela Mathura Dass. This area was comprised in four Khewats namely 1421, 1492, 1569 and 1646. On the death of Sital Dass, Mutation No. 6232 was entered in favour of "Thakur Dwara Radha Krishan" on the basis of unregistered Will, on 6.10.1962. This mutation was incorporated in jamabandi for the years 196263. This entry continued upto jamabandis for the years 198384 when Ram Baran Dass Mohtmim expired, Ram Bhushan Dass (petitioner) succeeded him in the capacity of Mohtmim through ''Fard Badar'' No. 1 which was entered by the Patwari and verified by Kanungo and sanctioned by Assistant Collector II Grade, Nawanshahar on 4.6.1985 in one day and entries "Thakur Dwara Radha Krishan" was deleted and "Ram Bhushan Dass chela Sital Dass" was shown as absolute owner. Mandir Sudhar Committee made a complaint to the Financial Commissioner Punjab who forwarded the same to the District Collector who set aside the order of 4.6.1985 on 31.12.1987 and restored the entries as incorporated in jamabandis from 196263 to 198384 jamabandis. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar which was dismissed (22.5.1989). Hence this revision petition.

This is an old case of 198889. It has been thought appropriate to decide this case on merits taking the grounds of revision petition and facts available on record as the counsel for the petitioner who was present on the last date of hearing has not turned up today.

I have considered the record and grounds of revision. The counsel for the petitioner has taken plea that Commissioner has failed to exercise his revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act only Financial Commissioner is competent to exercise his revisional powers. Secondly the Mutation No. 6232 sanctioned on 6.10.1962 specifically was incorporated regarding the inheritance of Sital Dass in favour of Ram Baran Dass. Under these circumstances the proceedings of ''Fard Badar'' had correctly been carried out in accordance with provisions of Para 7.29 of Punjab Land Records Manual. The counsel has taken another plea that entry has been challenged by one Gian Mittar who had no locus standi to file the revision petition. All the proceedings before the Collector as well as Commissioner are illegal which be quashed. The counsel for respondent rebutted these arguments stating that ''Fard Badar'' can''t be done after about 20 years. Entire property belongs to a religious Trust which is managed by the Mandir Sudhar Committee. The counsel urged to dismiss the revision petition.

In record the Collector in his order dated 31.12.1987 has observed that :

"The crux of the matter is not whether the Will dated 27.5.1962 is genuine or false or that Ram Bhushan Das is the sole owner of this property in dispute or only its Manager. This is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. The crux is whether Fard Badar No. 1 entered and sanctioned on 4.6.1985 by the A.C. II Grade in favour of Ram Bhushan Das is maintainable or otherwise."

I am inclined to agree with the observations of Collector and the Commissioner made in impugned orders. Mutation No. 6232 which had been sanctioned could not have been corrected by way of ''Fard Badar'' as under Para 7.29 of the Punjab Land Records Manual and only a clerical mistake could be rectified by way of ''Fard Badar''. Under Para 7.30 of the Land Records Manual the remedy is to have entries of jamabandis changed through Civil Court. Moreover correction by way of ''Fard Badar'' should not have been made without notice to the parties. As per entries of column No. 9, mutation had been sanctioned in favour of "Thakur Dwara" and the same has been carried on in the ownership column of jamabandi of 196263 till 198384. There is no clerical mistake of the kind contemplated in Para 7.29 of Punjab Land Records Manual. The property in dispute is religious one which is to be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court.

Under these circumstances, I see no merits in the revision petition to justify any interference in the impugned orders of the lower Courts. There is no illegality or irregularity in these orders to justify my interference in revision. Accordingly, the revision petition having no force, is dismissed.

While parting with this case, I am constrained to make some observations about the way in which the lands belonging to religious places and Deras are being grabbed by influential people. What is happening in Punjab is that longstanding entries in jamabandis are being changed by revenue officials in connivance with influential people to alienate land belonging to religious places or Panchayats. The Circle Revenue Officers are wilfully flouting the provisions of Para 7.30 of Land Records Manual. Old entries in jamabandis cannot be changed by incompetent entries made by revenue officers. They are making misuse of the mechanism of ''Fard Badar''. Day in and day out the revenue officials are acting as convenient tools in the hands of influential people. I am sure that they have an axe to grind themselves also because no self respecting revenue official will make amendments in old jamabandis by way of simple ''Fard Badar'' when there is either no order from the Civil Court or a clerical mistake is not made out. l am of the opinion that the ''Fard Badar'' procedure should only be followed either by specific order of the Civil Court or by the orders of no less an authority than Divisional Commissioner. In all such cases orders of Divisional Commissioner should be obtained through Sub Divisional Magistrates and Deputy Commissioners. Only this way this misuse of ''Fard Badar'' procedure will be avoided. Any entries made by the revenue officials in lax manner should be viewed seriously and Government should come down with a heavy hand on such corrupt and conniving officials.