ORDER Dr. B:C. Gupta, J.:- This is a Revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 28.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that mutation 3431 of village Bhawanipur, Tehsil and Distt. Kapurthala was entered on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 3.5.2006 in favour of Hardeep Kaur, Rajwant Kaur and Balbir Kaur respondents. The petitioner objected to the same on the ground that mutation 3431 has been entered on the basis of alleged invalid sale deed and tile matter concerning the sale deed is already pending in the civil court; therefore, the mutation be kept pending till the decision of the civil court. The A.C. 1st grade kept the case sine die, till the final decision of the civil court, vide his order dated 21.11.2006. Aggrieved with this order, Hardeep Kaur etc. filed an appeal before the Collector, Kapurthala who after hearing the parties, dismissed the same vide order dated 16.1.2007, on the ground that mutation 3431 has been sanc­tioned on the basis of mutation 3415 which is already in the civil court, for adjudication; hence, if­ mutation 3431 is sanctioned on the basis of mu­tation 3415, in dispute, it may cause further liti­gation. Against this order, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, on the ground that the revenue officers are not supposed to wait for the decision of pending civil suit in view of the judgments given by courts in many cases. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division after hearing the parties, held that the alleged civil suit had been filed much after the start of mutation proceed­ings and the findings in. the said pending civil suit, when become available, would be imple­mented in the revenue record. Accordingly, he accepted the revision petition vide his order dated 28.08.2007 and set aside the orders of the lower courts and sanctioned the mutation in question, in the name of the respondents. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. In his written arguments as well as oral asser­tion before me, the learned counsel for the peti­tioner has given the history of previous transac­tions of portion of land from the khewats, in question. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. In his written arguments as well as oral asser­tion before me, the learned counsel for the peti­tioner has given the history of previous transac­tions of portion of land from the khewats, in question. He has also mentioned about the civil litigation between the parries, taking the main plea that the sanctioning of mutation 3415 in favour of Manjit Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh etc. is matter of civil litigation. The learned counsel asserted that the subsequent mutation 3431 should not been sanctioned. The A.C. lst grade and the Collector had rightly ordered that the case regarding sanctioning of the said mutation 3431 should be kept pending, He prayed that, the order of the Commissioner, should he set aside. The counsel further stated that if the said mutation is sanctioned, its implication is to bring the names of new persons in the revenue record and for the village community, it amounts to creation of title in favour of persons whose names are entered in the revenue record. In support of this arguments, the ld. Counsel invited my attention to the rulings 2006 PLJ 86, 1992(2) PLJ 449 and 2006(2) PLJ 361. On the other hand, the Id. Counsel for the respondents stated in his written arguments that the order passed by the Commissioner was in accordance with law as reported in case 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 239 and 2005(2) PLR 103. It has been directed by the Hon’ble High Court in these cases that mutation should be sanctioned on the basis of regis­tered sale deeds. In fact, after the sanctioning of the mutation, the same has been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and at this stage, the revenue officer should not do anything which leads to making change in these entries. The learned counsel stated that the petition does not carry any merit and should be dismissed. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the counsel of both the parties and gone through the facts of the case available on record. Mutation 3431 has been sanctioned in favour of the respondents as per orders of the Commissioner, in question, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 3.5.2006. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the counsel of both the parties and gone through the facts of the case available on record. Mutation 3431 has been sanctioned in favour of the respondents as per orders of the Commissioner, in question, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 3.5.2006. The said sale deed may be a matter of civil litigation, but as the position at the moment, .it has to be given effect to by the revenue authorities, as the job of revenue authorities is to keep the revenue record upto date. Mutation is an instrument for carrying out changes in the record of rights based on valid legal documents. It is a settled principle of law that revenue officers while taking decisions on mutations, are not required to go into intricate questions of law and facts. As and when any new order is passed by civil court, the revenue officers are duty bound of enter a fresh mutation, based on that order and carry out correction in the revenue record. Based on this discussion, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and order of the Commissioner, in question upheld. 5. Announced in. open court. Petition dismissed. --------------