Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 783 (PNJ)

Ram Dass v. Base Ram

2008-03-27

L.S.M.SALINS

body2008
ORDER 1. This case revolves around sanctioned mutation no. 2595 dated 12th July, 1994 recording the exchange of agricultural land belonging to the petitioner with a plot of land of the same size belonging to the respondent (now deceased) located in village Chudani, District Jhajjar, Haryana. Both Ram Dass petitioner and Base Ram were real brothers. While the petitioner stays in village Chudani, the other brother apparently resided in Maharashtra. Base Ram alleged that he never agreed to exchange his plot for the agricultural land. He claimed that the application agreeing to do so and the alleged affidavit executed by him in favour of the son of Ram Dass was a fraud committed on him. Accordingly, he complained to the authorities in July, 1997 to have the mutation sanctioning the exchange reviewed-claiming to have come to know only then that this alleged exchange had taken place. 2. Ram Dass on the other hand is stated to have pointed out to the revenue functionaries that the mutation 2595 entered and sanctioned on 12th July, 1994 had certain mistakes in the field numbers and exact areas that needed to be rectified. The revenue functionaries on examining the matter recommended a review of the said mutation to the Collector in view of the clerical discrepancies. This was allowed in July, 1997. Meanwhile the complaint by the respondent was also taken up by the revenue functionaries when marked down by the revenue authorities. Both parties who appeared before the Assistant Collector II Grade placed their positions with the petitioner averring that the mutation had duly taken place with the consent of the brothers and the respondent denying the same and denying that he was ever present at the time the mutation was sanctioned. Assistant Collector II Grade heard the two sides and concluded that it was a case of contested mutation and that it could be only heard by Assistant Collector I Grade the competent authority. The latter, on hearing the matter, remanded the case back to Assistant Collector II Grade stating that the matter has to be seen in the light of the Collector’s order sanctioning the review of the mutation which implied that the recommendation sent to the Collector for review was only to correct the field numbers and area and that was allowed for which the Assistant Collector II Grade had to do the needful. This was opposed by the respondent who filed a revision with the Collector against the remand order of the Assistant Collector I Grade. The Collector, on hearing the matter as an appeal, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector I Grade agreeing with the respondent that the mutation appeared to have been based on fraud and needed to be reviewed after hearing both sides. Petitioner went in appeal against this order to the Commissioner, Rohtak Division who agreed with the Collector resulting in this revision petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there could have been no revision against the order of the Assistant Collector I Grade. That the Collector could not have opened up the review after so many years. Limitation for the review of a mutation was only 90 days according to law. In this case the mutation sanctioned in 1994 was opened up after so many years which was against law. Counsel further argued that the mutation was duly sanctioned as per procedure. Base Ram had signed the authorization for the exchange as well as the affidavit and was denying the same now as well as his signatures on the two documents. The dissimilarities in Base Ram’s signatures was due to his subsequent paralytic stroke and now was a matter of evidence that could be seen only by a civil court which only could establish whether Base Ram’s, signature was actually forged. Counsel for petitioner argued that Base Ram had received flood damage compensation pertaining to land received by him in exchange. This proved that he had agreed to the exchange that was correctly recorded in the mutation. 1971 PLJ 763 and 1999(2) RLR (Civil) 225 were relied on to substantiate the arguments. 4. Counsel for the respondent argued that the main question is whether contested mutation is to be decided by Assistant Collector I Grade or Assistant Collector II Grade. The Collector has categorically observed that Assistant Collector I Grade is empowered to decide the mutation. The respondent had challenged the order of Assistant Collector I Grade dated 16.2.2001 because he had wrongly remanded the case to Assistant Collector II Grade whereas it was a contested mutation. He argued that all the facts would come out if both sides were heard by the Assistant Collector I Grade. He alleged that mutation no. 2595 was hurried through. 1967 PLA page 160 was relied on. He argued that all the facts would come out if both sides were heard by the Assistant Collector I Grade. He alleged that mutation no. 2595 was hurried through. 1967 PLA page 160 was relied on. It was finally argued that there was no proof that Base Ram received any compensation for the plot from the revenue authorities as he had other land as well. 5. On hearing both sides and perusing the records it seems that the question is not whether contested mutation is to be decided by Assistant Collector I Grade or Assistant Collector II Grade. A contested mutation is decided at the level of Assistant Collector I Grade. It is observed here that two matters have been intertwined. Report of the revenue functionaries for review of mutation 2595 in order to correct certain discrepancies in recording the field numbers and areas in the mutation in dispute that was sanctioned on 12.7.94 has been allowed by the Collector. Meanwhile the Assistant Collector II Grade who received the permission also received a complaint marked down to him from the Collector made by Base Ram that he had never applied for exchange of his plot with agriculture land belonging to his brother and calling for a review of the said mutation. Assistant Collector II Grade who was to act as per the permission received for review, on hearing both sides, sent the matter to, the Assistant Collector I Grade stating that it is a contested mutation. Assistant Collector I Grade before whom the matter came up remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector II Grade with the direction to act as per the specific review order received from the Collector. Against this decision Base Ram went in revision before the Collector who passed the impugned order which was endorsed by the Commissioner. Vide the impugned order Collector’ directed the Assistant Collector I Grade to hear both sides and also review the mutation. 6. At this point, it is observed that as far as the Assistant Collector II Grade is concerned, his direction to the Assistant Collector II Grade to review the mutation was in order. The Assistant Collector II Grade on receiving the complaint of respondent should have confined himself firstly to correcting the mistakes in the mutation as per permission already received. At this point, it is observed that as far as the Assistant Collector II Grade is concerned, his direction to the Assistant Collector II Grade to review the mutation was in order. The Assistant Collector II Grade on receiving the complaint of respondent should have confined himself firstly to correcting the mistakes in the mutation as per permission already received. Subsequently, on considering the objections raised by the respondent decide whether or not to recommend review of the mutation as such. The matter could not have been treated as a contested mutation as mutation had already been entered and sanctioned in 1994. The Assistant Collector II Grade could not have deemed mutation to be contested without first reopening the entire matter by taking appropriate orders. He could have recommended a review if he felt it necessary. Assistant Collector I Grade was therefore correct in asking the Assistant Collector II Grade to correct the mistake as per the review orders. received from Collector. 7. However, Collector vide impugned order dated 23.11.2005 while directing that the mutation will be dealt as a contested mutation by the Assistant Collector I Grade, has nevertheless also directed that the entire mutation is to be reviewed in view of Base Ram’s allegations. The Commissioner has agreed with the Collector and in doing so has deemed it to be a contested mutation. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that no reasons have been given for allowing the review after delay of such a long period. However, the circumstances of the case as brought out in the Collector’s and Commissioner’s orders warranted a re-look at the mutation although it is a separate matter as to whether the land exchange can be reversed by the revenue authorities even if mutation is subsequently decided in favour of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner’s argument that the signatures attributed to Base Ram in the application and affidavit for exchange with the subsequent differing signatures are because of his illness and is a matter of evidence and fact to be decided by an appropriate court of law is no doubt correct. The appropriate court would finally decide on the matter but that does not prevent the revenue authorities from considering the existing evidence on the file to decide whether or not the mutation should be finally sanctioned and entered in the record of rights. The appropriate court would finally decide on the matter but that does not prevent the revenue authorities from considering the existing evidence on the file to decide whether or not the mutation should be finally sanctioned and entered in the record of rights. As far as the petitioner’s contention that the review is beyond limitation and without reasoning as per Section 15 (1) (b) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the applicant has to satisfy the revenue officer and once that condition is satisfied review can be allowed. In this case, it is not entered into the record of rights and is a mere administrative step. The Collector has felt it necessary to hear both sides before deciding on the mutations afresh. There appears nothing wrong in the decision of the Collector. The various citations relied on by the parties will be kept in mind while taking a decision. 9. In view of the above, I do not deem it necessary to intervene in the orders of the Collector and Commissioner. Petition is dismissed and the parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector I Grade, Bahadurgarh on 28.4.2008. Announced. ----------------------