P L D 1952 (Rev) Punjab 7 (PLP)

This order will dispose of two revision applica tions Nos. 98 and 99 of 1946‑47 filed against the order dated the 3rd May, 1946, of the Collector, Gujranwala, whereby he accorded sanction to review mutations Nos. 406 and 407 of village Pipli Goraya, tahsil Guiranwala. The facts of the case have been fully stated in the reference dated the 29th April, 1947, made by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, and need not be reiterated here. In the first instance the question for determination is whether the Col lector Gujranwala was justified in entertaining the application for review long after the period of 90 days from the date of the mutation order had elapsed. As held in 15 Lah. 216 (P. C) where a Revenue Officer, acting under section 15, subsec tion (1) of the Act of 1887, has reviewed and reversed an order passed more than 90 days before the application to review, it is to be assumed that the Revenue Officer was satisfied, as required by the subsection, that the applicant had sufficient cause for not applying within that period. That case is somewhat distinguishable from the present one but at the same time I do not that the omission to record reasons for entertaining the belated application for review by the Col lector was a material irregularity warranting my interference in revision. It is of course important that the Revenue Officers should apply their minds and make their orders self -contained. The Collector should have recorded reasons for entertaining the application so late. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed with considerable force the fact that as the mutation entries must have been incorporated in a jamabandi these could not be altered except on the basis of an obvious clerical error or patent fact. In support of his contention he cited 11 L L T 128 and 13 L L T 3 both rulings by Sir Miles Irving. The learned counsel could not show whether the mutation entries had in fact been incorporated in a jamabandi but the fact remains that if these have been so incorporated there is no reason to depart from the safe rule laid down by Sir Miles Irving in 11 L L T 128 that "an application for the correction of a mutation, which is contested and which on the face of it is not based on an obvious clerical error or patent fact, should be rejected summarily and the parties referred to a civil suit". The Revenue Officer concerned should also not ignore the principle laid down in 13 L L T 3 by Sir Miles Irving, Financial Commissioner that when a mutation entry has been incorporated in a jamabandi it should not be altered except on the basis of an obvious clerical error or patent fact. All these instructions are for the Revenue Officer to bear in mind while considering the effect of the sanction to review accorded by the Collector. Subject to these observations the two revision applications are rejected. Announced. K. M. A. Revision rejected.