Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 670 (PNJ)

Sarbjit Singh v. Santokh Singh

2001-07-09

K.S.JANJUA

body2001
ORDER K.S. Janjua, F.C. - Brief facts of this case filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are that late Ujagar Singh predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to 4 got mutation No. 9119 of village Bundala, Tehsil Phillaur entered and sanctioned in the light of agreement of private partition dated 8.5.1995 vide order dated 13.6.95 of AC-1. On 19.4.99 Santokh Singh-respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Collector Phillaur on the ground that the alleged agreement (8.6.95) has been fabricated and forged and the mutation has been sanctioned without summoning him. The Collector accepted the appeal on 13.6.95 and remanded the case to AC-1 for fresh decision. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before Commissioner, who dismissed the same finding no merits in it (16.11.2000). Hence this revision petition. 2. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners argued that the parties have land in three villages named Pasli, Bhardwajian and Bundala. The courts below have failed to appreciate that total and between Santokh Singh and his brother Ujagar Singh was partitioned vide one agreement dated 8.6.1995 and the mutation of village Bhardwajian No. 2529 and mutation No. 3074 of village Pasli were sanctioned at Noor Mehal. In column No. 13 of the said mutations it was mentioned that there was a Private Partition. These mutations were never challenged till today. In view of these mutations, the mutation in dispute bearing No. 9119 cannot be looked into and reopened now. The counsel averred that in final settlement of family partition on 8.6.95 late Ujagar Singh had given 4 kanals of land to Santokh Singh in excess, in village Bhardwajian. The Commissioner as well as Collector have wrongly and illegally concluded that the agreement dated 8.6.95 is suspicious document. The counsel further contended that Collector erred in law while accepting the time barred appeal of the respondent without any application of condonation of delay on 28.7.99. The appeal was barred by time i.e. three years nine months and five days. Inspite of objections made by the office, vide report dated 1.4.99 the appeal was accepted by the Collector. The counsel further contended that Collector erred in law while accepting the time barred appeal of the respondent without any application of condonation of delay on 28.7.99. The appeal was barred by time i.e. three years nine months and five days. Inspite of objections made by the office, vide report dated 1.4.99 the appeal was accepted by the Collector. Under CPC, Order 41 Rule 3-A appeal when presented after expiry of period of limitation is to be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting for the facts as to why the delay should be condoned as held in 1992(2)-PLJ-567. The respondents have failed to pin point any prejudice caused to them by the order of the partition and as such the Collector as well as the Commissioner have wrongly accepted and appeals. 3. By rebutting these arguments Sh. R.D. Bawa, Advocate counsel for the respondent No. 1 stressed in his pleadings that AC-1 has sanctioned the mutation in question without summoning the respondents. The respondents filed appeal before the Collector within time from the date of knowledge of order dated 13.6.1995. The Collector has rightly and legally condoned the delay and he has given a concurrent findings of facts that the agreement dated 8.6.95 on the basis of which the property has been partitioned was prepared fraudulently for grabbing the property. There is no thumb impression or signature of Santokh Singh on the alleged agreement. There must be attesting signature of two witnesses on the deed of agreement as per Section 3 of TPA but it is attested by one witness - Gurchetan Singh who has admitted that alleged agreement was not prepared and signed by the executant in his presence, therefore, the entire exercise of alleged partition is vitiated. The counsel contended further that the mutation in question is stated to have been entered at the instance of Santokh Singh when he was neither present before AC-1 nor he approached the patwari for entering the mutation. He was never summoned. Even the statement of Santokh Singh was not recorded at the time of sanctioning the mutation in question at Roorka Kalan. Most importantly a perusal of the agreement reveals that all the khasra numbers have been retyped by erasing the original numbers typed on document. The counsel urged that under these circumstances, the instant revision petition is deserved to be dismissed. 4. Most importantly a perusal of the agreement reveals that all the khasra numbers have been retyped by erasing the original numbers typed on document. The counsel urged that under these circumstances, the instant revision petition is deserved to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments and record of the case. I find that there is no reason at all for me to interfere in this revision petition. AC-1 has verified the entries of the mutation on 13.6.95 in the presence of Santokh Singh, Ujagar Singh and the other respected persons of the village by concluding that the agreement deed 8.6.1995 proved with the evidence given by the scriber as well as by the signature of attesting witnesses. On the preparation of instrument of Khangi Taqseem no attestation of witnesses is required. The parties themselves can decide their shares as was done in the family partition deed dated 8.6.99. However, one witness Gurchetan Singh has signed as witness. I am also inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioners that when mutation No. 2529 of village Bhardwajian and mutation No. 3074 of village Pasli have been sanctioned on the basis of partition agreement dated 8.6.95 and which had not been challenged till to date, this mutation No. 9119 of village Bundala cannot be looked into and re-examined treating the partition deed as fraudulent document. Revenue Officers have no jurisdiction to change the Jamabandi etc. since the mutations have now been incorporated in the Jamabandi. There is no explanation whatever for the silence of the respondents for three years and nine months before challenging the mutation No. 9119. Ujagar Singh and Santokh Singh are sons of Beer Singh and should themselves have gone to the patwari to intimate the death of their father and produce the family settlement partition deed dated 8.6.1995. At any rate the plea that Santokh Singh was unaware of the mutation in dispute all these years lacks all credibility. It would be in-appropriate now to interfere with the mutation sanctioned in a case like this. In view of the above discussion the revision petition is accepted and orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner are set aside. Announced. Revision allowed.