The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for revenue authorities to possess basic knowledge of law and apply it judiciously in quasi-judicial matters, especially when making decisions that affect the rights of the parties.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.

By medium of this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the private respondents and rejected the claim of the petitioners seeking correction of entries in revenue records.

The facts in brief may be noticed.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Sundernagar on 13.12.1987 stating that he was in possession of Khasra No. 441 and 442, kita 2 measuring 1116.0 Sq. meters situate in village Ropa since 1980 and therefore, his possession be recorded in the revenue record. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide his order dated 29.2.1988, ordered the correction of the revenue records w.e.f. Rabi Girdwari on 1988. This order was challenged by the private respondents before the Sub Divisional Commissioner, who upheld the same. In further challenge, even the Divisional Commissioner upheld this order, constraining the private respondents to approach the Financial Commissioner, who finally allowed the petition and quashed the orders passed by all the authorities below.

3. The petitioners have challenged this order as being based on assumptions and presumptions, conjectures and surmises. They have further averred that once the consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- had been received by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and possession delivered to their predecessor-in-interest, then there was nothing wrong with the orders passed by the revenue authorities in ordering the entry of possession in favour of the petitioners in the revenue records.

4. The private respondents 2 to 6, who are the successors of Lal Man, have in their reply averred that in the year 1980 when an amount of Rs.10,000/- is alleged to have been paid to their predecessor Lal Man by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, then oral sales were not permissible and whereas under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the sale deed was compulsorily required to be registered since the value of the sale consideration was more than Rs.100/-. It is also submitted that Lal Man at the relevant time had no right, title and interest or authority to sell the land as he was neither its owner nor in possession and the same at that time belonged to the Bhakra Beas Management Board. It is also contended that the A.C. IInd Grade had no power to record the statements of the parties and further had no jurisdiction to change the revenue entries on the basis of the impermissible oral sale.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

6. It would be seen from the records that the possession of the petitioners had been ordered to be recorded only on the basis of a statement alleged to have been made by Sh.Lal Man before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 19.2.1988 when the proceedings were infact pending before it. It is recorded therein that he had received Rs.10,000/- from Sadhu, father of Mangat Ram as sale consideration and he therefore, had no objection in case the possession of Mangat Ram is recorded over the land in dispute.

7. Interestingly, this statement bears a thumb impression, whereas it has been proved on record that Sh.Lal Man was literate and therefore, there was no occasion for him to have put his thumb impression on the statement. The relevant portion of the statement reads thus:-

“That khata khatauni min 68/183, Khasra No. 441, 452, area 1116 sq. mt. has been given in ‘Bhai Bandi’ to Shri Sadhu S/o Sidhu, who are growing vegetables, they are not paying me any rent but they have given me Rs.10,000/- in the shape of a sale, I owe them back the said money and at this juncture I do not possess the money to return them.”

8. Apparently, this statement is absolutely vague and by no standards can be construed to be an agreement of sale. Above all, where was the necessity of recording such statement particular