JUDGMENT S. S. Sidbu, I.A.S. —S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand have filed this revision petition against the order dated 17-3-1988 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Jodha Ram, father of the petitioners, executed a gift deed in respect of his 2/3rd share in Khasra Nos 584 and 585, classified as Gair Mumkin Abadi\ in favour of the petitioners. Mutation No. 205 was entered on 6-11-1985 in pursuance of gift deed- The Assistant Collector, II Grade, Barsar, rejected the mutation on 23-12-19^5 on the ground that house and courtyard of Shri Ranjit Singh, respondent No 2 were situated on these two Khasra numbers and the possession of 2/3rd share had not been passed to the petitioners Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Barsar, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 25-10-1986. The first revision filed by the present petitioners against the orders of the Revenue Officers below was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, vide his order dated 17-3-1988, which is now the subject of the second revision before us, 3. We have gone through the record of the case and have also heard Shri A. C. Dogra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sushil Kumar Kanwar, Advocate, learned Counsel for Shri Ranjit Singh, respondent No 2. The interest of Shri Jodha Ram, respondent No 1 is common with the interest of the petitioners The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that Shri Jodha Ram, respondent No. 1 was in possession of both Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 and hence was fully competent to transfer the same by way of gift or sale The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon 1971 PLJ 656, wherein it was held that owner can transfer even a specific portion of the land and the mutation has to be sanctioned. He also cited 1987-SLJ-548 to emphasise the point that decree of civil court is binding upon the Revenue Officers. Replying to the arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent No, 2 stated that validity of gift deed was not being challenged by him He vehemently argued that it is the duty of the Revenue Officers to see that the gifted property is in exclusive possession of the donor. He placed his reliance on the rulings contained in 1972-LLT-20, 1986-SLC-96 and 1991-PLJ-219. He placed his reliance on the rulings contained in 1972-LLT-20, 1986-SLC-96 and 1991-PLJ-219. The mala plank of his arguments was that the mutation cannot be sanctioned without the transfer of the possession of the gifted property, It is clear from the perusal of the record that actual possession of the gifted property had not been transferred and as such, the mutation had rightly been rejected by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Barsar. There does not appear to be any force in the second revision filed by tbe petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Order be communicated. Petition dismissed.