AJAIB SINGH Vs. SODARGAR SINGH

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, against the order dated 25.3.1994, passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, in a case of mutation regarding sale of land, with his recommendation, that, the impugned orders be set aside, as per his reference dated 17.6.1996.

(2.) THE facts of this case are, that, vide registered sale deed dated 8.11.1991, Balbir Singh s/o Babu Singh, resident of village Dhanaulla Kalan, Tehsil Barnala, district Sangrur, had sold land measuring 7 Kanals 10 Marlas, comprised in Khata No. 940/2011, situate at village Dhanaulla Kalan, in favour of Dial Singh, Ajaib Singh, Lal Singh and Pal Singh sons of Nahar Singh, in equal shares. Mutation No. 6432 was entered by the halqa patwari, which was rejected by the P.G.O.-cum-A.C. Ist Grade, Sangrur, vide her order dated 29.10.1993. The other vicissitudes with regard to this mutation are mentioned in this order of the A.C. Ist Grade; and, may be referred to, if necessary, with a view to fully appreciate the background of this case.

(3.) THE orders passed by these two officers do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which may call for interference at the revisional stage. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, has chosen to report this case, on the grounds, which are untenable. It is not the duty of the Revenue Officers to fill-in-blanks; and, they are supposed to give effect to the clearly established facts in the revenue record. Where the entries incorporated in the deeds do not tally with the entries in the revenue record, and are at variance, the Revenue Officers are not supposed to accept such deeds and to incorporate the same in the revenue record.