The mutation of land based on orders does not create title, and entries in the revenue record are for fiscal purposes and do not establish ownership. The jurisdiction of the civil court over Panchayat land and the limitation period for the suit were also established.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below holding that order dated 3.6.1985 Ex.P5 passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Palwal, directing correction of Kasra Girdawari entries of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant-appellant is of no consequence and that the order dated 29.7.1985 Ex.P7 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palwal, against the plaintiff-respondents would not affect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Gram Panchayat. The revenue entries in pursuance to the aforesaid orders were changed in favour of the defendant-appellant. The views of the learned Appellant Court on the afore-mentioned issues read as under: -

"The short controversy involved in the present litigation is as to whether what is the effect of orders dated 3.6.1985 (copy) Ex.P5 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Palwal ordering correction of Khasra-girdawari entries of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-defendant. Secondly, whether the order dated 29.7.1985 (copy Ex.P7) passed by SDM Palwal against the respondent-plaintiff still holds ground or not. It is not disputed that on the basis of these two orders, revenue entries with regard to land in dispute were changed in favour of the appellant-defendant. A perusal of copy of jamabandi Ex.PI2/Ex.PE placed on the file shows the ownership of the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of Panchayat Deh Jodhpur and the same is in possession of Thana son of Bihari son of Ramli, 1/2 share; Sharma, Kashi Ram, Ami sons of Naatha son of Girdhar, 1/2 share as gair morusian. Claiming to be in possession of the land in dispute, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application for correction of Khasra girdawari entries recorded in favour of Kashi Ram, Ami and one Bhuley son of Thana without impleading the owner as a party and that application was accepted on 3.6.1985. Though, it is mentioned in that order that Sarpanch Gram Panchayat stated the possession of Janglia over the land in dispute but without any specific order with regard to impleading Gram Panchayat as a party. After passing of this order in favour of appellant-defendant, he filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration under Section 13-A of Punjab Village Common Lands Act against Gram Panchayat and that suit was decreed on 29.7.1985 (copy) Ex,P7, on an admission made by the then Sarpanch Hukam Singh as evident from his statement (copy) Ex.P9 and which led to the mutating of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-defendant as evident from document Ex.P14. But the admission made in this regard on behalf of Gram Panchayat cannot be relied upon and the same was rightly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals) Hissar Division, Hissar while passing order (copy) Ex.PA 11.3.1987. There is nothing on the record to show that Hukam Singh Sarpanch was authorised to defend or admit the claim of appellant-defendant. The same view was taken in the case of Balwant Singh v. Gram Sabha, Behrampur Bet and Ors. (supra). No authorisation is there on the file which may show that any resolution was passed in favour of Hukam Singh to admit the claim of the appellant-defendant with regard to the property in dispute. Secondly, though revenue entries were changed in favour of the appellant-defendant on the basis of orders dated 29.7.1985 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Palwal but when that order was set aside by the Commissioner, Hissar Divn., Hissar in a revision, then the continuation of the changed revenue entries is merely a futile exercise. It is well settled that entries in the revenue record are made for fiscal purposes and mutation does not create any title. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that Puran defendant was not a party in the proceedings initiated under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Act and so, he was not compete