ORDER Shri R. K. Anand, F. C—The Collector, Solan District had made a reference vide his order, dated 15-9-1983 that directions be given to the Revenue officers below to give effect to deed No. 54 of 1950 in the revenue record by entering a mutation to this effect, 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Tulsi Ram executed a registered deed No. 54, dated 10-8-1950 relinquishing his right in respect of property of Khewat No. 1 Khatauni Nos. 2 and 5 and Khewat No. 2, Khatauni Nos. 3 and 4 area measuring 51-19 bighas situated in village Mahog Tehsil Kandaghat in favour of Dhani Ram. On the basis of this deed, mutation No 63 was entered by the Patwari but the Revenue officer vide his order dated 15-6-1952 refused to sanction the mutation and ordered that the mutation should be re-entered after the Charsala work was over. After the death of Tulsi Ram, mutation No. 84 was entered. This mutation was also rejected by the Revenue Officer because Dhani Ram could not produce a copy of order passed in mutation No. 63, which had been rejected earlier. Against the rejection of this mutation, the petitioner Dhani Ram preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Kandaghat, who dismissed the same. This order of the Sub-Divisional Collector was challenged before the District Collector, who made the instant reference. It has been recommended by him that since there is no time-limit for entering the mutation, it should not have been rejected on technical grounds. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. Perusal of section 35 of H. P. Land Revenue Act, which relates to the procedure for making records, lays down that any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land owner, assignee of land revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquistion of the right to the Patwari of the estate. Further section 40 of the Act pertains to penalty for neglect to report acquisition of any right referred to in section 35. Further section 40 of the Act pertains to penalty for neglect to report acquisition of any right referred to in section 35. It appears from the perusal of the provision contained in section 40 that the report regarding acquisition of a right is required to be made within a period of three months from the dete of acquisition otherwise a penalty of fine can be imposed. 4. In this case, Tulsi—Ram relinquished his right in favour of Dhani Ram vide registered deed No. 54, dated 10*8-1950. Keeping in view the provisions of section 35 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, it was obligatory on the part of + Dhani Ram to report to the village Patwari his acquisition of right in the property. Since the earlier order, dated 15-6-52 rejecting the mutation is not available, it is not clear whether a report regarding the acquisition of right was made within a period of three months by Dhani Ram and if so what were the grounds on which the mutation was not sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. The Revenue Officer could have refused to sanction the mutation if the possession of the land had not been transferred to Dhani Ram. According to H. P Land Records Manual, possession is a precondition for attesting a mutation of transfer by gift, sale or mortgage para 19 of Chapter?). According to the guidelines laid down in the manual the attestation of a mutation can be postponed if the possession is to be transferred after certain harvests or in the event of a dispute between the parties. However, it is not clear as to why the mutation was rejected by the Revenue Officer, Subsequently, in January, 1980 when the mutation No. b4 was entered by the village Patwari, the Revenue Officer refused to sanction it vide his order dated 20-6-1980 on the ground that a copy of the earlier order of the Revenue Officer, rejecting the mutation had not been produced and also that the mutation had not been entered within a reasonable period of time. Another ground for rejecting the mutation was that one of the parties, Balak Ham, respondent was objecting to the attestation of mutation. Another ground for rejecting the mutation was that one of the parties, Balak Ham, respondent was objecting to the attestation of mutation. Since the mutation is to be attested on the basis of a registered document executed by deceased Tulsi Ram in favour of Dhani Ram, it is reasonable that the Revenue Officer should ascertain the facts and thereafter pass an order. He should also verify whether the possession has been transferred as a sequel to the relinquishment of his right in the land by deceased -Tulsi Ram and based on the factual position with regard to the possession an order should be passed by the Revenue Officer. In view of the apparent lacuna in the order of the Revenue Officer below, the recommendation made by the Collector, Solan District, is accepted and the case is remanded to the Revenue Officer below for a decision afresh in accordance with the law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the interested parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tehsildar, Kandaghat, on 31-10-1985. Announced. Case remanded.