The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutations attested without hearing the necessary party and in the presence of a dispute regarding cultivating possession of the land are not maintainable and require de novo inquiry.

1. These three revision petitions have been entertained by this Court on 9.1.2008 and a common order was passed. Thereafter these three revision petitions have been prosecuted by the counsels and interim orders from time to time, have been passed in revision petition no. 1.

2. Rawail singh (deceased respondent no.1), herein filed three appeals against the order of Mutating officer Bari Brahamana Samba, firstly against Mutation no. 1458 attested by Naib Tehsildar, by virtue of which he corrected Cultivation column of girdawari from kharif 1971 to 1974, on the name of Roop Lal and Rajinder Singh. Second appeal was filed with regard to mutation no. 1483 dt 7.12 1982 attested under section 4 of agrarian reform act and lastly with regard to mutation no.1510 dt. 8.2.1983 attestted under section u/s 8 of Agrarian Reform Act on the names of Roop Lal and Rajinder Singh. All these three mutation pertains to land measuring 12 kanals 14 marlals under khasra No. 1540 situated at village Birpuur Tehsil and Distt Samba. Court below have accepted, all these appeals and remanded the case back to Tehsildar for fresh inquiry on 30.3.2007.

3. In the memo of revision petitions, petitioners have stated that respondent no. 1 Rawail Singh ( DECEASED ), filed three separate appeals thereby challenging the mutations nos. 1458, 1483 and mutation no; 1510, whereby girdawari entry of cultivation from Kharief 1971 to Kharief 1974, was corrected under the provision of Agrarian Reform Act on the name of Rooplal and Rajinder singh and thereafter mutations u/s 4 and section 8 of Agrarian Reform Act were attested in their favour. That all the appeals were clubbed together and disposed off by common judgment dt 30.3.2007. That impugned order has been passed at the back of petitioners. No notice was given to petitioners. That it is the first week of Dec, 2007, petitioners came to know from Patwari, that mutations have been set aside.

4. It has further been stated in memo of revision petition that, Roop lal and Rajinder Singh were in physical possession of land measuring 12 k 14 marlasl under khasra no. 1540 situated at village Birpur prior to Kharief 1971. That during Kharif 1971 Roop lal was in possession of 8 kanals 14 marlasl of land and Rajinder was in possession of 4 kanals of land under Khasra no. 1540. That owner of land were Qabla Singh and karnail Singh and recorded tenant was Munshi Ram, who relinquished his tenancy right in favour of land-lord in the year 1965. That this land was in personal cultivation of Roop lal and Rajinder Singh, as tenants under Quabla Singh and karnail Singh. That effect of relinquishment was not given in revenue record and tenancy remained on the name of Munshi Ram from Kharief 1971 to Kharief 1974. That after the enforcement of Agrarian Reform Act, correction of girdawri entry were made by mutation no; 1458 dt. 25.5.82, whereby land measuring 8 kanals 14 marlas and land measuring 4 kanals was corrected on the name of Roop lal and Rajinder singh. That mutation no. 1483 dt. 7.11.82 and mutation no; 1510 dt. 8.2.1983 were attested u/s 4 and 8 of Agrarian Reform Act in their favour. That Roop lal died and his estate has devolved upon petitioners. A mutation of inheritance no. 1503 dt. 8.11.1988 has been attested.

5. That kartar Singh and others who were owners and had effected partition in Khewat No. 2 and Khata No; 13 prior to 1950 and land comprising khasra No. 1540 along with other land had fallen in share of Sansar Singh the father of Qabla Singh and Karnail Singh. Tenancy in favour of Munshi Ram was created prior to 1965.Munshi Ram surrendered his tenancy in favour of land-lord in 1965, so Rawail had no concern with the land. That owners were not cultivating the land, so mutation u/s 4 of Agrarian Reform Act was attested thereby divesting Qabla Singh and Karnal Singh of their ownership rights. The order impugned, passed by Court below is without jurisdiction. That question of law and public importance is involved in the case. Tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document