P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 21st of May 1962, passed by Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that, by means of a registered deed dated 28‑9‑1937, the Imperial Bank sold an area of 20 kanals 18 marlas and 6 Sq. ft. to Mst. Lakshmi Bai Roop Chand, Mst. Parkash Vati, Mst. Ishar Devi, Ishar Das, Mst. Savitri Devi, Des Raj, Mst. Bhagwati Devi and Mst. Vidya Malhotra. Mutation No. 103 was, however, entered on 14‑6‑1949. This mutation included Khasra No. 212 measuring 15 kanals 6 marlas and 36 Sq. ft. Subsequently the petitioner put in a representation to the Tehsildar, Lahore, alleging that this Khasra number was never sold by the petitioner to anybody. Enquiries were made and ultimately the Collector ordered that mutation No. 103 could not be reviewed and the representation of the petitioner was, rejected. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was also dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader at length. Unfortunately the registered sale‑deed on the basis of which the mutation was entered and sanctioned has not been produced. The petitioner has produced seven registered deeds, but it is not established that either all or any one of them was produced before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Another point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation was sanctioned in the absence of the parties. A reference to the mutation shows that one Lala Inder Nath Malhotra was present. It has not, however, been clarified whether he was representing the petitioner or the vendees. One thing is, however, established that besides the registered deed, Lala lnder Nath Malhotra was present and it cannot, therefore, be said that all the parties were not present. The petitioner wishes the correction of revenue record to be made in the absence of the vendees. It was urged that the vendees are representated by the Settlement Authorities and in. this connection a reference was made to the report submitted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. That very report, however, shows that the matter was regarded as a complicated one and a request has been made that the matter should be left to be decided by the Civil Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the vendees or their representatives are admitting that mutation No. 103 was wrongly sanctioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to a number of rulings but none of them is on all fours with the present case. As things stand, neither the facts can be said to have been duly proved nor have been admitted by both the parties. A correction under section 37 of the Land Revenue Act cannot, therefore, be made. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. Parties to be informed accordingly. K.M. A. Revision dismissed.