ANOKH SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, with his opinion that the present revision petition be accepted and the order, dated 30.8.1991, passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Sunam, and the order dated 14.9.1992, passed by the Collector, Sangrur, be set aside, as per his reference dated 20.11.1995, made in a mutation case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are, that, mutation No. 1967 of Village Ratta Khera, H.B. No. 47, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, regarding the change of ownership from the name of Waryam Singh son of Kesar Singh, in favour of his six sons - the present petitioners - was entered on the basis of a civil Court decree dated 29.4.1983, after the death of Waryam Singh, a landowner, who had died in the year 1990. On this mutation, respondent Gurcharan Kaur, daughter of Waryam Singh had raised an objection, that, the civil Court decree, on the basis of which the mutation was entered, was a bogus document and could not be given effect to in the revenue record. This mutation, as a contested one, was taken up by the A.C. 1st Grade, Sunam, who after considering the evidence led by both the sides, had rejected the same, as per his order dated 30.8.1991, by concluding, that, the said compromise-civil Court decree, had not proved, to have been consented to by Waryam Singh. Against this order, Anokh Singh etc. had filed an appeal before the District Collector, Sangrur, who, vide his order dated 14.9.1992, had also rejected the same. Still aggrieved by this order, the petitioners Anokh Singh etc. had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, as per his reference dated 20.11.1995, the operative part of which, reads as follows :- "I find that civil Court decree No. 161 of 22.4.1983 filed by the petitioners decided on 29.4.1984 by Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Sunam, is in favour of the petitioners and as per various authorities the findings of the civil Court are binding on revenue officers. However, both the lower Courts ignored this decree suspecting it to be a forged one and this action is a grave lapse on the part of the lower Courts. The revision petition is therefore recommended for setting aside the impugned orders".

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that, the present petition has no merit and the same deserves to be rejected. It is revealed from the record that the petitioners had procured three compromise decrees, through civil Courts from their father-Waryam Singh, on three different dates, to the affect that they were declared owners of the land indicated in each decree. The first decree was obtained by the petitioners in a civil suit No. 568 of 13.10.1971, decided on the same very day, on which the suit was filed. The second similar compromise-decree was obtained on 27.4.1972 (although, the Collector, Sangrur in his order, has mentioned this decree as dated 27.4.1977). The third compromise-decree, was obtained in civil suit No. 161 dated 22.4.1983, decided on 29.4.1983, that is, after 7 days of filing the suit.