A tenant-at-will has no locus standi to challenge a mutation of ownership of land if his status is not disturbed, and a Revenue Officer has the right to sanction a mutation where the land is under the occupation of a tenant-at-will.

S. R. Bunger, FC. - The present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 11.2.1991, passed by the Sub- Divisional Collector, Malerkotla, in a case of mutation regarding transfer of ownership, with his recommendation, that, the order dated 11.2.91, passed by the Collector, as well as, the order dated 14.9.90, passed by the A.C. IInd Grade, Dhuri, be set aside and the case be remanded to the A.C. 1st Grade, Malerkotla for deciding the whole issue afresh, by treating the mutation as a contested mutation, as per his reference dated 31.1.97. The operative part of the reference reads as follows :-

"A careful perusal of the file and as well as of the impugned order would also reveal that even on the mutation sheet itself the patwari had written his note in red ink that a stay by the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Dhuri was in existence. Moreover, the petitioner had also contested the mutation. Even in the mutation sheet also the cultivation by petitioner has been very clearly recorded. This would have been sufficient for the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to withdraw his hands from the mutation and not to sanction the same. Similarly, since the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had failed to declare the mutation as contested, the S.D.O.(C) should have appreciated that point. However, it has to be sadly observed that despite the objection even relating to continuous possession of the petitioner and as well as production of Civil Court stay orders by the petitioner, the S.D.O.(C) failed to apply himself properly to the merits of the case. I am, thus, of the considered view that the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and as well as S.D.O.(C)-cum-Collector, Malerkotla are without jurisdiction and need to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is recommended to the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab with the suggestion to set aside the impugned orders dated 14.9.1990 and as well as 11.2.1991 and to remand the case to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Malerkotla for deciding the whole issue afresh, treating the mutation as a contested mutation."

2. The brief facts of this case are, that, mutation No. 3239 of village Ranike, Tehsil Malerkotla, relating to the transfer of ownership of land, on the basis of the registered sale deed, effecting the change from the names of Sukhjevan Singh etc. in favour of Zora Singh, in respect of the land measuring 14 Kanal 10 Marlas, was sanctioned by the A.C. IInd Grade, Dhuri vide his order dated 14.9.90. Aggrieved by this order, Ajaib Singh had filed an appeal before the Collector, Malerkotla, which was rejected vide Collectors order dated 11th February, 1991; the operative part of which reads as follows :-

"I have carefully considered arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record. From a perusal of order dated 3.8.90, passed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Dhuri, I find that it is just stay order with regard to change of possession. Mutation proceedings are of a summary nature and just to bring the revenue record upto date. Moreover, there is a number of rulings on the point that mutation cannot be kept in abeyance and it has to be decided either way. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on the file to prove that Smt. Sujan Kaur is dead, as alleged by the appellant. The present mutation has been decided on the basis of a valid registered sale deed, to which there is no rebuttal on the record. In these circumstances I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order.

In view of the above, the appeal is rejected."

Still aggrieved by the above order, Ajaib Singh had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala, as a result of which, the case has been reported as per his reference dated 31.1.1997.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard, as, none came present on behalf of the re