TARLOK SINGH Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by Shri N.K. Arora, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order of the Collector, Amritsar dated 21.9.1990, passed in connection with mutation No. 353 of village Thikriwala, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, with his opinion that the order dated 28.11.1988, passed by the A.C. I, Ajnala as well as the order 21.9.1990 passed by the Collector, Amritsar be set aside and the case be remanded to A.C. II. Ajnala for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of the registered sale deed, as per his reference dated 30.7.1991.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, mutation No. 353 of village Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Amritsar regarding sale of land was sanctioned by the A.C. II Grade, Ajnala, from Kashmir Singh son of Fauja Singh, as vendor in favour of Tarlok Singh son of Fauja Singh, as vendee on 28.2.1987, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17.2.1987, for the sale of land measuring 43K-19M for Rs. 11,000/-. The A.C. IInd, Ajnala, had sanctioned this mutation in the open gathering, on the identification of Kashmir Singh, vendor and Tarlok Singh, vendee by the Sarpanch Sh. Jagir Singh Sidhwan and before the A.C. II. The contents of the registered sale deed were confirmed and it was stated that Tarlok Singh, vendee had already been put in possession of the said land. Against the order of the A.C. II, Ajnala, Kashmir Singh, vendor filed an appeal before the Collector-cum-SDO (Civil), Ajnala, on the ground, that the mutation was sanctioned in his absence and without hearing him; that Tarlok Singh had played a fraud in collusion with the deed-writer and officials of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ajnala, and in the sale deed, an area sold measuring 43K-19M was incorporated; whereas, an area measuring 3K-14M only was sold for Rs. 11,000/-. This appeal was accepted as per Collector's order dated 3.3.1988 and the case was remanded to the AC II, Ajnala by name (Sh. Amarjit Salwan, Naib-Tehsildar) for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Thereafter, this mutation was taken up by the A.C. I Grade (S.D.O. (Civil), Ajnala), as a contested one, and after considering the evidence produced by the parties, rejected this mutation as per his order dated 28.11.1988. Here it may be observed, that earlier Sh. Ranjit Singh, PCS, had heard the appeal against the order of the AC II, Ajnala dated 28.2.1987, as Collector, Ajnala and had decided the case as per his order dated 3.3.1988, and had remanded the case to the A.C. IInd Grade, Ajnala by name but the same officer Sh. Ranjit Singh took up this mutation on remand as a contested one and decided the same as AC I Grade, Ajnala, and had rejected the mutation as per his order 28.11.1988. Against this order of the A.C. Ist, Ajnala, Tarlok Singh-vendee filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ajnala, who also rejected the same as per his order dated 21.9.1990, with the observation that, "The value of land as Rs. 11,000/- for 43K-19M as shown in the sale-deed seems to be unbelievable particularly when an element of fraud has been alleged. The parties are at liberty to knock the door of civil court." Still aggrieved by this order, Tarlok Singh filed the revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, as a result of which, the present case has been reported as per reference dated 30.7.1991 by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division.

(3.) THE learned counsel for both the parties have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present revision petition has merit and the same deserves to be accepted. In this case, the AC IInd, Ajnala had sanctioned this mutation regarding sale of land, after the contents of the sale deed were confirmed by the parties and the parties were identified by the Sarpanch-Jagir Singh Sidhwan. No objection, whatsoever, was raised by the vendor-Kashmir Singh before the AC IInd. The vendor-Kashmir Singh kept quiet for nearly about 9 months, after the mutation was sanctioned, and thereafter on 3.11.1987, filed an appeal against the order of the AC IInd, alleging fraud in the execution and registration of the sale deed, as well as sanctioning of the mutation by AC IInd, Ajnala in his absence and without hearing him. Sh. Ranjit Singh, PCS, SDO (Civil) Ajnala, accepted this appeal as per his order dated 3.3.1988, as Collector, Ajnala and remanded the case for fresh decision to AC IInd, Ajnala, by name, to Sh. Amarjit Salwan, Naib Tehsildar. Inspite of this, Sh. Ranjit Singh took up this case as AC Ist Grade, Ajnala and decided the same as per his order dated 28.11.1988, as a contested mutation, and rejected the mutation on the ground, that, "the physical possession in this case has not been transferred, the vendor has refused the execution of the sale deed, and the sale of land measuring 43K-19M for Rs. 11,000/- is unbelievable". Against this order, vender-Tarlok Singh filed an appeal before the Additional D.C.-Cum-Collector, who also rejected the same as per his orderer dated 21.9.1990. From the evidence brought on the record, the execution and registeration of the sale deed stands duly proved with the testimony of Amolok Singh AW-1, as deed writer, that of Harbans Singh AW-2, as Registry Clerk and by Sukhpal Singh-AW-3 as a marginal witness to the sale deed. The second marginal witness namely Jagir Singh Sidhwan, sarpanch, has since died. The transfer of possession of land was also admitted by the parties before the AC IInd, Ajnala, when he initially sanctioned this mutation. Further entries in the relevant Khasra girdawari also show the possession of the disputed land with Tarlok Singh, veendee. Moreover, vendor-Kashmir Singh has admitted his appearance before the Sub-Registrar, Ajnala as well as his putting the thumb impression in the Register of the stamp-vendor. Thus, besides the supporting evidence available on the record, the vendor-Kashmir Singh, has not denied the execution and registration of the sale deed. The only plea taken by him, is that, the vendee-Tarlok Singh has managed this sale deed, for the sale of land measuring 43K-19M, whereas, he has sold only 3K-14M for Rs. 11,000/-, with the collusion of the deed- writer, as well as, the officials of the office of the sub-Registrar, Ajnala by committing fraud. This plea of Kashmir Singh is untenable, because, firstly, Kashmir Singh did not raise any objection before the AC IInd, Ajnala when the mutation was sanctioned in the open gathering. Secondly, he kept quiet for nearly 9 months after the mutation was sanctioned and thought of filing an appeal before the Collector after a lapse of nearly 9 months. This shows that challenging of the registered sale deed by Kashmir Singh is an after-thought, for the reason best known to him. As regards the alleged fraud committed by Tarlok Singh, in the execution and the registration of the sale deed, prima facie, the version of Kashmir Singh is unbelievable, and if, for the sake of argument it is admitted to be true, then the right course for the vendor-Kashmir Singh, was to agitate this matter either before a criminal court or before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is on the record, that, Kashmir Singh has filed a civil suit on 12.12.1987, but later on, he had withdrawn the same and the sub-judge had dismissed the suit as withdrawn, as per his order dated 17.1.1991. This shows that Kashmir Singh had a lurking fear in his mind, that, he had no case, and realising that, thought it proper to withdraw the same. Thus, after filing a suit in a civil court, and later on withdrawing the same for the reasons bests known to Kashmir Singh, he cannot be allowed to plead a fraud in this case, and that too, through the collusion of Govt. officials. This assertition of Kashmir Singh being devoid of veracity deserves to be rejected and ignored.