Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 567 (PNJ)

Lakha Singh v. Bachni

2002-05-20

KARL REDDY

body2002
ORDER Karl Reddy, FC. - This is an appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seeking to set aside the order dated 7.11.1989 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in mutation No. 176 of village Momanwal, H.B. No. 77, tehsil Batala. 2. Kabul Singh etc. co-sharers, through their Mukhitar-e-Aam Amrik Singh, sold land measuring 34 K/12 m comprised in Khasra Nos. 10//4(8-0), 12//18/2 (2-15), 9 (7-7), 20 (2-8), 22/1 (3-11), 7//17 (6-19), 6//11/2 (3-12), Khata 16, Khatauni Nos. 26 to 30 as per jamabandi for the year 1970-71, for Rs. 12000/- to Bachni, present respondent through registered sale deed No. 5576 dated 22.2.1974. Thereafter they resiled from the sale and filed suit for declaration that they are owners in possession through their tenants Moti s/o Buta (husband of Bachni) of 1/5th share i.e. and measuring 23 k 4-1/5 m out of land measuring 116 k 1 m bearing Khasra Nos. 6//20, 7//15, 6//11/1, 12, 19/2, 7//14, 24, 25, 10//4, 11/1, 61, 71, 70, 6// 11/2, 21, 7//8, 1/0//5, 12//18/2, 19, 20 min, 21/1, 7//26, 7//16, Khewat Nos. 16 and 17, Khatauni Nos. 21 to 32, as per jamabandi for the year 1970-71. The Sub Judge Ist Class, Batala vide order dated 14.8.1978 dismissed the suit (Civil Suit No. 153 of 1977 Date of Institution 30.3.1977). 3. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 22.4.1985 sanctioned the mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed. In appeal against the order, the Collector Gurdaspur vide order dated 3.12.1985 noted that the patwari had made a red ink entry on the mutation sheet, that the total land of this joint khata is 118 k 5 m of which the vendors have 1/5th share i.e. to the extent of only 23 k 13 m. The Collector held that a co- sharer can sell specific numbers in his possession, but it is not open to him to sell land in excess of his share. Consequently, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, and sanctioned the mutation to the extent of 473/692 share measuring 23 k 13 m out of khasra No. 6//11/2, 7//17, 10//4, 12//18/2, 19, 20, 22/1. 4. Bachnis appeal against this order was filed 39 days late. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, condoned the delay. Consequently, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, and sanctioned the mutation to the extent of 473/692 share measuring 23 k 13 m out of khasra No. 6//11/2, 7//17, 10//4, 12//18/2, 19, 20, 22/1. 4. Bachnis appeal against this order was filed 39 days late. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, condoned the delay. She held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to curtail the effect of the registered sale deed. Until the registered sale deed is annulled or rejected by the civil court, the Revenue Officers are bound to treat the registered sale deed as valid. Accordingly she set aside the order of the Collector and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Hence this petition. 5. It is correct that the Collector had no jurisdiction to restrict the effect of the registered sale deed to a share in specific Khasra numbers. It is not evident how he selected the specific Khasra numbers or how he arrived at a finding that the vendors have 437/692 share measuring 23 k 13 m, when in the civil suit the vendors had claimed 1/5th share i.e. 23 k 4-1/5 m. 6. However, the order of the Commissioner is also incorrect. A presumption of truth attaches to the annual record. That presumption will be lost if effect is given to transactions whereby co-sharers are trying to steal a march over each other. The modus operandi is to execute a registered sale or mortgage deed in respect of land (a) in excess of the share in the joint holding (b) comprised in specific Khasra numbers without being in possession thereof. In the present day, when contested mutations are invariably decided after a full dress trial, and after exhausting the avenues of appeal and revision at the sub-divisional, divisional, and State headquarter, and not by summary on-the-spot investigation the party with the deeper pockets and not the truth is likely to prevail. It is only fair and just to direct the parties trying to incorporate such transaction in the revenue record to obtain a declaration from the civil court, and not to shift the onus to the innocent bystander. Accordingly, the mutation is rejected. To be communicated. Order accordingly.