JASWANT SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order, dated 21.1.08 of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, order as well as order dated 30.3.06 of SDM-cum-Collector, Amritsar-II.

(2.) FACTS in brief of this case are that mutation No. 730 of village Mirankot Khurd Tehsil and District Amritsar was entered by the Patwari Halqa in favour of the petitioners and Satnam Singh respondent No. 2 on the basis of exchange agreement dated 7.3.05 which was sanctioned by A.C.II Amritsar vide his order dated 1.7.05. Aggrieved by this, Ram Singh son of Buta Singh filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector Amritsar-II mainly on the plea that the alleged exchange deed was never executed by him and nor he ever gave consent to respondent for exchange in respect of his 1/4 share of the total land. Further, A.C.II sanctioned the mutation despite the fact that he (Ram Singh) made his representation on 24.6.05. Ram Singh did not appear before the Halqa Patwari nor before A.C.II. After hearing counsel for both the parties, the SDM-cum-Collector accepted the appeal of Ram Singh setting aside the order dated 1.7.05 of A.C.II Amritsar. Now the present petitioner challenged this order before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by filing an appeal which was dismissed on 21.1.08. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by Sh. Premjit Kalia counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition as well orders and record of the lower courts. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 has not filed written arguments. Hence the case is being decided on merit. After careful perusal of the written arguments filed by counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition, orders and record of lower courts, I find no force in the present revision petition. The orders of the Collector and Commissioner are well reasoned and justified and suffer from no legal infirmity. As observed by the lower courts the exchange deed/agreement is an unregistered document. Moreover the respondent Ram Singh has stated before the lower courts that he never executed or consented to the respondent for exchange in respect of his share in the total land. It is settled law that the revenue officers are not to sanction the mutation on the basis of document which are surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the genuineness of which are doubtful. The orders of the lower courts do not warrant any interference by this court. The revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. .