P L D 1964 W (PLP)

paras. 7.28 & 7.29‑"No rent" entry made in jamabandi without entering mutation to that effect‑Does not carry presumption of truth. An application was made on 8‑1‑57 by the petitioners who are occupancy tenants of the land in dispute situated in village Harchoke, District Lyallpur, that they should be allowed to acquire rights of ownership as laid down in section 114 of the Tenancy Act by payment of whatever compensation may be due from them to their landlords, The Assistant Collector held that entries in the jamabandi of 1942‑43 disclosed that in fact no rent was being paid by the tenants to the landlord as stated in the note given by the village Patwari in the remarks column. Entries in the rent column were to the effect that malikana was paid by the tenants at the rate of one anna and one pie per rupee of the land revenue. In the opinion of the Assistant Collector this specific entry merely indicated a legal liability to pay but in fact no malikana was paid by the tenants in view of the Patwaris note in the remarks column. Further in keeping with the dictionary meaning of word "pays" used in sec tion 114 (ii) (c) of the Tenancy Act he held that as the tenants were not in fact paying any rent, they were entitled to the rights of ownership without payment of any compensation. An appeal was preferred to the Collector who set aside this order. According to him the entries made by the Patwari in the remarks column were without authority and no presumption of truth attaches to them. In support of this view, he found that in the subsequent jamabandi which was in force at the time that section 114 of the Tenancy Act brought on the statute this note by the Patwari had disappeared, and the rent column indicated that the tenants were paying malikana at the rate mentioned earlier. His view vas that the contention that the tenants were not paying malikana and therefore the case falls under clause (a) of subsection (2) of" section 114, was raised at a later stage when the tenants learnt that the date for payment of compensation was not extended by Government after it had expired on 15‑3‑

55. According to him, as the word "payable" has been used in the rules framed under section 114, the worn "pays" used in the various clauses of subsection (2) means a liability to pay. He accordingly accepted the appeal and held that the owners of the land had acquired full rights of ownership and the occupancy tenants were merely reduced to the position of tenants were merely reduced to the position of tenants‑at‑will liable to pay balm in accordance with the new provisions of section 114 (1) of the Tenancy Act. A second appeal was preferred to the Additional Commissioner who upheld the decision of the Collector. A revision has now been preferred. Only one point has really been agitated before me namely that entries in the jamabandi of 1942‑43 and 1949‑50 (a copy of which was shown to me but not placed on record) showed that in fact no rent was being paid by the tenants. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in accordance with the directions given in paragraph 387 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual the Patwari has to make entries about actual payment of rent. The words used in this paragraph on which reliance is placed runs as follows:‑ "All payments of rent and revenue made up to the 15th of Bhadon which corresponds roughly to the end of August should be incorporated in it (i.e. jamabandi)." The entries by the Patwari have, therefore, been made by hi during the course of his duties and carry with it a presumption of truth. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is a specific column in the jamabandi for making entries of rent and the entries mentioned in this paragraph have a reference to this column and not entries in the remarks column. In support of his view, he has relied on paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29 of the Land Records Manual. Paragraph 7.28 (vi) speaks of "undisputed entries in column No. 9 relating to rents of tenants -at‑will and entries made in pursuance of an order under section 27 of the Tenancy Act. "Entries in the remarks column can only be made in respect of certain specified matters as laid down in sub‑para. (viii) and these specific matters have been detailed further on in paragraph 7.41 (x) of the Manual. Any entries which are not covered by the latter paragraph are thus without authority and do not carry with them any pre sumption of truth. Sub‑para. (viii) of the paragraph gives details how entries in the rent column are to be filled. The relevant part of this sub‑paragraph runs as follows:‑ "Where no rent is paid by the persons in possession other than the owner briefly explain the reasons for non‑payment of rent if the fact is undisputed. As above explained the entry of no rent because of a claim to adverse possession should never be made . . . . . ." Quite obviously, the entry in the remarks column made by the Patwari is not in accordance with the instructions contained either in the Land Administration Manual or the Land Records Manual. Paragraph 7.29 of the latter specifically directs that "jamabandi entries not incorporated in the preceding paragraph should not be varied in subsequent records without first obtaining orders for their variation on mutations entered for this purpose except where the variation merely exists in the removal of a clerical mistake, that is to say of a mistake which has been made in copying the entries of one jamabandi into another or in incor porating a mutation in a jamabandi and the correction of which does not involve the alteration of any mutation order." Thus the proper course for the village Patwari was to have a mutation entered and as he did not do so this entry regarding non‑payment of rent loses any presumption of its truthfulness. I am in agreement with these arguments. These entries are obviously without any presumption of its truthfulness. These entries are obviously without any legal authority and have rightly bee rejected by the Collector and the learned Additional Commis sioner. As a result I hold that the orders passed by them are in accordance with law and dismiss the revision petition. The parties should be informed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.