ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against order dated 24.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division reversing the order of the Collector dated 31.1.2002 who had accepted the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 4.8.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Farrukh Nagar. 2. Facts in brief are that Tejwati-respondent no. 1 filed an application for correction of Khasra girdawari before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon alleging therein that her husband Ranbir Singh had purchased land measuring 68 Kanals by way of registered deed no.3762 dated 31.10.1980 and some area was Banjar. It was also stated that another adjoining piece of Rect. No.99 Killa No.19/1 (5-13) of Sohan Lal son of Hira Ram was also given by him to respondent no. 1 for reclamation/nautor. Respondent no.1 was reclaimed in the revenue record in 1981 and the same is shown as Banjar. The same was given for reclamation through agreement. The present petitioners have purchased the aforestated land from the proforma respondent on 23.4.1998. It was prayed on the basis of the agreement that the respondent No.1 was in possession, therefore, the Khasra Girdawari from 1981 till today be corrected. The petitioners who were added as respondents in the application by respondent no. 1 herein on the ground that the land in question has been sold to them by Lajwanti on 23.4.1998 which has also been recorded in mutation no.3908 and they have become owners. The application was accepted by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Farrukh Nagar and ordered correction of Girdawari since Kharif, 1999 upto date in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 4.8.2000, which was challenged by way of appeal before the Collector, Gurgaon and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.1.2002. The respondent filed revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which has been allowed by him vide impugned order dated 24.1.2006. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is based upon agreement Ex.PW -1 whereby Sohan Lal is alleged to have entered into an agreement with Ranbir of Rs.1,700/- and also mentioned that possession has been delivered. On this agreement of sale, it was held that the order dated 4.8.2000 passed by Assistant Collector II Grade is illegal and he has been wrongly set aside by the learned Collector. On this agreement of sale, it was held that the order dated 4.8.2000 passed by Assistant Collector II Grade is illegal and he has been wrongly set aside by the learned Collector. He referred to case reported as 1923 Lahore 31 and 1971 PLJ 27 wherein it has been held that a statement in sale deed with regard to delivery of possession is a weak evidence. Moreover, there is no dispute that the petitioners are owners of land in dispute by virtue of registered sale deed No.1260 for Rs.1,41,500/- and agreement to sell does not confer any title on the respondent no.1 and the Khasra Girdawari cannot be corrected for the purpose of recording the name of a person who is a stranger than the person who is rightful owner by virtue of registered sale deed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that Sohan Lal had bought property but mutation could not be sanctioned due to consolidation. Even spot inspection and local persons favour the claim of respondents. Therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that the agreement said to have been executed in 1981 was, not followed up with any correction of khasra girdawari. Khasra girdawaris upto 1999 also do not support the fact that the possession was of the respondents. This application for correction of khasra Girdawari was moved after the petitioner had purchased land from Lajwanti in April, 1998, who was the original landowner. Sohan Lal who is said to have passed on possession to Ranbir Singh had neither any registered deed in his favour nor any entry in the revenue record. In view of the same, he could not have passed better title than what he had. Under these circumstances, the orders dated 24.1.2006 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon are set aside and the appeal is allowed. ——————