The duty of the Revenue Officer to decide mutation proceedings as per the merits of the case, based on the facts regarding change in ownership.

G.S. Sandhu, F.C. - This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887, against order dated 17.11.2005 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

2. The brief facts of this case, are that, mutation No. 1858 of village Lehal Kala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, was entered by Patwari halqa on the basis of registered sale deed dated 5.2.2003 in favour of Parminder Kaur respondent No. 1. The petitioner, Harbans Singh, contested the said mutation. As such the mutation was referred to AC-1st (SDM) Phillaur. Before AC-1st, Parminder Kaur did not appear and the case was dismissed in default, vide order dated 30.10.2003. Parminder Kaur respondent No. 1 then filed an application for restoration of the said case and the AC-1st Phillaur dismissed that application vide his order dated 4.8.2004, on the plea that the application for restoration should have been made within thirty days from the date of order. Aggrieved by this order, Parminder Kaur respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before Collector Jalandhar, and the Collector accepted the appeal vide his order dated 10.5.2005 and set aside the order dated 30.10.2003 passed by AC-1st Phillaur. The Collector held that the default in appearance was not intentional; she, being indisposed, could not appear in the Court of AC-1st because of the death of her child and continued ailment. Not satisfied by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who after hearing the parties held that no illegality and irregularity was committed in remanding the case. Still aggrieved the petitioner has filed present revision petition on the ground stated therein.

3. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. The only plea taken is that the AC-1st Grade had rightly rejected the application for restoration as the same had not been made within thirty days as prescribed under law. The Counsel further mentioned that both the Collector and the Commissioner should not have allowed the restoration of mutation proceedings when clearly the delay was more than the prescribed thirty days.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record of the case. Mutation proceedings deal with updating of revenue record. Whenever a change in ownership of agriculture land is reported, the Patwari is required to enter a mutation. The mutation so entered cannot be kept in suspended animation. When the mutation is put up to a Revenue Officer (AC 1st or AC 2nd Grade as the case may be) for decision, the only choice available to the Revenue Office is either to sanction the mutation (with or without modifications) or to reject the same. Simply because an interested party is absent does not in itself negate the factum involving change of ownership. It is the duty of the Revenue Officer to find out the facts regarding change in ownership and thereafter take decision as per the merits of the case, either sanctioning the mutation (with or without modifications) or rejecting the same. In the instant case the mutation which has been entered on the basis of a registered Sale Deed cannot be dismissed in default just because the vendee and/or vendor is absent. The decision on a mutation has to reflect the ground realities, which a Revenue Officer is supposed to find out after summary enquiries. Accordingly, the decision of Collector dated 10.5.2006 directing AC-1st Grade to decide the mutation proceedings as per the merits of the case, is in order. The orders of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 17.11.2005, vide which he dismissed the appeal, are also in order. The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Announced.

Petition dismissed.