P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑Commis sioner can exercise revisional powers. (b) Mutation‑

To be sanctioned on basis of registered sale -deed‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in Civil Court. The facts of this revision petition, briefly, are that the peti tioners sold an area measuring 2 kanlas and 9 marlas out of Khasra No. 2403 situated in village Nawan Kot, District Lahore, through their general attorney Agha Muhammad Yaqoob to the respondent in lieu of Rs. 13,440 through a registered sale deed dated 18‑4‑1959. Mutation No. 352 was, however, entered two years after on 8‑5‑1961 on the representation of respondent' vendee, but it was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 17‑6‑1961 on the main ground that the original sale deed was not produced before him. The Collector interfered in appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the respondent to produce evidence in his favour. The present peti tioners preferred a second appeal against this order before the learned Commissioner, Lahore who, vide his detailed order dated 3‑9‑1962, dismissed the appeal, but exercising his revisional juris diction under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act directed that the mutation should be attested in accordance with the terms of the registered deed. A second revision has now been filed against this order of the learned Commissioner. Two main points were argued by the counsel for the peti tioners: firstly that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to upset or modify the Collector's order in revision and secondly that the registered sale deed was not executed by the general attorney of the petitioners, so that a fraud had been perpetrated upon the petitioners regarding which civil and criminal proceed ings are pending between the parties. The first point is not correct as Commissioners have got revisional jurisdiction and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Lahore is quite competent in law. The other point relates to a complicated question of fact and law which the Revenue Officers are not requir ed to go into summarily in mutation proceedings. A certified copy of the registered deed had been produced before the Assistant Collector who was not justified to go into its authenticity and in accordance with the decisions of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue the right course for him was to act upon the deed in the ordinary way unless there was an order of competent Court to the effect that the registered deed was null and void. By refusing to act upon the registered sale deed the Assistant Collector had assumed the role of a civil Court which is beyond his jurisdiction. The civil and criminal proceedings going on in various Courts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, relate to the adjudication of rights between the parties with which the Revenue Officers are not concerned. Entries in the revenue records merely shift the onus of proof and responsibility for payment of land revenue from one party to another through muta tion proceedings. Thus when a deed is duly registered, the burden of proving that it does not contain a real transaction lies on the person who alleges it and this matter is to be determined by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In the circumstances I would hold that the learned Commissioner rightly interfered as a revisional authority with the order passed by the officers below. There is no force in the second revision petition, which stands dismissed, so that the order passed by the Commissioner is upheld. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.