P L D 1957 W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑

The dispute relates to mutation No. 382 of the estate of Mamdana in Tahsil Phalia. The land, to which that mutation relates, had been held by a widow who sold it to the present respondent. Some of the reversioners obtained a declaratory decree in 1943 to the effect that the alienation in favour of the present respondent would not affect their reversionary rights after the death of the vendor (the widow). The death of the vendor took place in 1945. The mutation in question was recorded in 1954. The purpose of the mutation entry was that the reversioners of the widow should be shown as the owners of the property in question. The Assistant Collector rejected the mutation. The Collector, however, intervened in appeal and directed that the mutation should be accepted in respect of such fields as were in the possession of the present petitioners in the Khasra Girdawari of 1954 and that it should stand rejected in respect of the other fields. The Commis sioner, who was moved by the present respondent decided that the whole mutation should be rejected. The reason why the Commissioner dismissed the mutation was that the declaratory decree was not followed by a suit for obtaining possession within the period of three years after the death of the widow as required by law. To my mind, this is an extraneous consideration. The mutation in dispute is merely to record the fact that certain persons became owners instead of the present respondent as soon as the widow died. The mutation will not show whether the successors are in possession or whether they have the right to obtain possession. Some of the reversioners happen to be in possession, because they were tenants in the land. The Revenue Officer is not to decide the question whether this possession is such possession as would deprive the present respondent of all his rights in the land. The respondent says that since the petitioners cannot go to a Civil Court for recovering possession on the basis of the declaratory decree, due to the law of limitation, they should not be entered as owners in the Jamabandi. This proposition is not supported by any law. As I have already explained, the Revenue Officer, in dealing with this mutation, is concerned only with the question who are the persons who were entitled to succeed to the property of the widow if the widow had not sold the land to the present respondent. I cannot say whether all such persons have been ascertained by the Revenue Officers below. While I accept this petition for revision and direct that the mutation should not stand rejected, I would like the Assistant Collector concerned to hold an inquiry on the point who are the persons entitled to succeed and he should then let their names be entered as owners of the land in dispute instead of the present respondent, Such a change would not mean that the Revenue Officer has done anything in order to ascertain who are the persons in possession of the property and to declare that any particular person is entitled to retain or recover possession. The rights of the parties relating to the recovery and or retention of possession would not be affected by the Revenue Officer's decision. K.M.A. Revision accepted.