ORDER Karl Reddy, F.C. - This is a petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, seeking to revise the order dated 27.9.2001 of the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, and to restore the order dated 29.2.2001 of the S.D.M.-cum-Collector, Moga, in regard to correction of entries in the Jarnabandi by way of Fard Badar. 2. The parties who were co-owners of land situated in village Ghal Kalan, Tehsil and District Moga, privately partitioned the joint holding. Two versions of the unregistered deed of private partition are in circulation, but the dispute relates solely to Khasra No. 163//25/5(2-7) banjar qadim. According to the petitioners version, the deed was executed on 8.2.1985 and the disputed Khasra No. fell to his share. According to the respondents version, the deed was executed on 8.2.1986 and the disputed Khasra No. fell to the share of the petitioner to the extent of 0k 7m and to the respondents to the extent 2k 0m. 3. Mutation No. 7935 of exchange was entered on the basis of the agreement dated 8.2.1985 vide rapt No. 184 dated 14.2.1986, and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 26.3.1986. The Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 shows Khewat No. 64, Khatauni No. 124, Khasra No. 163//25/5(2-7) to be in the ownership and cultivating possession of the petitioner. Another mutation of exchange No. 8221 was entered on 14.7.1988 in respect of the land which fell to the share of the respondents, and was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 10.8.1988. The entry in column No. 11 of the counterfoil i.e. Patwaris copy in respect of the disputed Khasra No. has clearly been tampered with, and does not tally with the entry in the foil of this mutation. Contrary even to the respondents version of the agreement, the petitioner has no share in the disputed Khasra No. in the Jamabandi for 1988-89 which shows Khewat No. 80, Khatuni No. 145, Khasra No. 163//25/5(27) to be in the ownership and cultivating possession of Kishan Singh s/o Dhan Singh, Charanjit Singh, Amarjit Singh S/o Kishan Singh in equal share. A third mutation of exchange No. 8448 was sanctioned on 25.2.1991 according to which 0k 12m or 1/4th share of the disputed Khasra No. was transferred from Paramjit Singh to Charanjit Singh s/o Khusal Singh. This change was incorporated in the Jamabandi against Khewat No. 99. A third mutation of exchange No. 8448 was sanctioned on 25.2.1991 according to which 0k 12m or 1/4th share of the disputed Khasra No. was transferred from Paramjit Singh to Charanjit Singh s/o Khusal Singh. This change was incorporated in the Jamabandi against Khewat No. 99. The Khasra Girdawaris for the years 1994-95 to 2000-2001 show the disputed Khasra number in its entirety to be in ownership and possession of the petitioner. 4. Accroding to Para No. 7.2 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, when a Mutation is entered in respect of any land, the serial No. and nature of the transaction shall be noted in pencil in the remarks column of the Jamabandi. If and when the Mutation is sanctioned, the entry shall be made in red ink. That is to say, entry in pencil and subsequent entry in red ink should have been made by the Patwari in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84 so as to forestall sanction and entry of a second mutation on the basis of the same transaction in respect of the same land. According to Para 7.4 ibid, the Field Kanungo is to attest, by personal examination, every entry in the foil and the counterfoil, and to sign the entries in both the foil and the counterfoil. The Kanungos duties in the preparation of the Jarnabandi have been detailed in Para 7.60 ibid The Revenue Officer attesting the mutation must carefully compare the entries in both the foil and the counterfoil (Para 7.4 ibid). The duties of the Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar while attesting the Jamabandi have been detailed in Para 7.62 ibid. It is apparent that all the revenue officials have been negligent in the performance of their duties as prescribed in the Punjab Land Records Manual. 5. On application made by the petitioner, the Tehsildar Moga recommended for correction of entries in the Jamabandis for 1988-89 to 1998-99 by way of Fard Badar. The SDM-cum-Collector, Moga granted permission vide order dated 2.3.2001. In appeal against that order, the Commissioner held that the SDM-cum-Collector had ordered correction of entries in the Jamabandi by way of Fard Badar without hearing the appellants (present respondents) which is against the principles of natural justice. The SDM-cum-Collector, Moga granted permission vide order dated 2.3.2001. In appeal against that order, the Commissioner held that the SDM-cum-Collector had ordered correction of entries in the Jamabandi by way of Fard Badar without hearing the appellants (present respondents) which is against the principles of natural justice. It is not a case of clerical error which can be corrected by way of Fard Badar because mutation No. 8221 sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 10.8.1998 was incorporated in the Jamabandi. As per law, mutation incorporated in the Jamabandl cannot be corrected by the Revenue Officer, and only a Civil Court can take cognizance of the matter. Moreover, the appellants-respondents have filed suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Moga in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 163/25/5(2-7). Having said this, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the S.D.M.-cum- Collector, Moga for fresh decision in the light of his observations, instead of accepting the appeal. Hence this petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that opportunity for hearing, if any was required, has been granted by the Commissioner and also during the present proceedings. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred under Section 158(2) (v) (vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 7. The Commissioner held correctly that the Fard Badar should not have been sanctioned without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. However, the Commissioner failed to note that various revenue officials under his supervision have not complied with the provisions of the Punjab Land Records Manual while writing up, attesting, and sanctioning mutations, and also while incorporating the changes as per the mutations in the Jamabandi for 1988-89. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record has been seriously undermined by these officials. The higher Revenue Officers cannot abdicate their supervisory function and leave it to the Civil Courts to correct all mistakes. The conclusions/observations subsequent to the second sentence of para 5 of the impugned order of the Commissioner are therefore struck off the record. 8. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record has been seriously undermined by these officials. The higher Revenue Officers cannot abdicate their supervisory function and leave it to the Civil Courts to correct all mistakes. The conclusions/observations subsequent to the second sentence of para 5 of the impugned order of the Commissioner are therefore struck off the record. 8. The District Collector, Moga is directed to : (a) examine the original record of the Patwari and the record of then tehsil/sadr office; (b) identify the defaulting officials, and if any of them is still in service in any capacity, place them under suspension immediately; (c) fix individual responsibility for blatant violation of the provisions of the Punjab Land Records Manual and initiate disciplinary action against those at fault; (d) arrive at a conclusion whether the entries in the Jamabandis for 1988-89 to 1998-99 can be corrected by way of Fard Badar or whether the parties should seek adjudication in the Civil Courts; within a period of 3 months. The parties have been directed to appear before him on 11.11.2002. Ordered accordingly.