A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34(1) – Mutation – Right of -- Any person who acquires any right in an estate by inheritance, purchase, mortgage or otherwise as land owners, assignee of land revenue or a tenant having a right of occupancy, has to report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of the estate – Patwari is to enter the said acquired right in his register of mutation, which he has reason to believe to have taken place.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34(4) -- Section 34(1) – Mutation – Right of -- Revenue Officer, from time to time, is required to inquire about the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions coming to his knowledge and then pass an order accordingly.

(Para 6)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 36 -- Mutation – Objection to – Jurisdiction of -- In case, any objection to the acquisition of right is raised, then the mutation is called contentious and then the jurisdiction lies with the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the contentious mutation by passing a speaking order as required under Section 36 of the Act.

(Para 6)

D. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 –Decree Holder -- Mutation -- Right of – Right cannot be denied only on the ground of pendency of a litigation in respect of that right -- It is well settled that mutation is sanctioned only for the fiscal purposes -- Said judgment and decree is still in subsistence – No merit in the petition, dismissed.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Writ jurisdiction -- Mutation – Objection to -- Anybody who acquires the right has to inform the Halqa Patwari about the same, thereafter, the Halqa Patwari has to make an entry of the acquisition of such right in the mutation register – Said application and mutation register is then placed before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for his order -- At that stage, if somebody objects, entry made in the register of mutation, then the objections are entertained and the said objections are then placed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for decision as the said mutation is called the disputed mutation -- Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector 1^st Grade passes the order as to whether mutation has to be sanctioned or to be refused -- Authority which the petitioner had to approach is the Halqa Patwari and not respondents-Secretary Revenue, District Collector and Tehsildar – Petition seeking mandamus against them is not maintainable -- Petitioners are relegated to their remedy under the Statute.

(Para 4)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation entry -- Legal position in respect of mutation entries is well settled that it does not confer any title.

(Para 41)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Revenue record entries – Challenge to -- Question whether the parties have any dispute with regard to title or the entries in the revenue records is liable to be settled in the Civil Court.

(Para 43, 44)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Writ jurisdiction – Civil Court -- Mutation entries – Parties who are affected by the entries in the revenue record or otherwise have a claim to title which is under a cloud, can get their rights determined by way of a civil suit -- Plea of bona fide purchasers, without notice express or implied of the true owner, if available, the same is also to be raised by the petitioners before the Civil Court – High Court gave directions to parties to maintain status-quo in relation to alienation, construction, possession or change of nature of the land till the Civil suit is filed and is disposed of.

 (Para 46-52)

A. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 4, 5 – Waqf property -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Khidmatgars – Right of – Entry in jamabandi – Relevance of -- Ownership claimed only on the basis of entry in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 -- Jamabandi is not the document of title unless the same is supported by the title deed or any other relevant documents -- Plaintiff did not produce any document showing transfer of ownership by “B”, the original owner of the property in his favour or his ancestors -- It was only proved on record that his ancestors were only Khidmatgars (Care-takers) -- A caretaker cannot be vested with the right of ownership of the property in dispute -- Accordingly, on the basis of entry in the jamabandi, plaintiff could not be declared as owner or having any right of ownership.

(Para 15)

B. Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 4, 5 – Waqf property -- Khidmatgars – Notice -- Right of -- Contention that plaintiff was not given any opportunity or any notice before issuance of Notification, does not carry any weight as list of Waqf property was surveyed by Survey Commissioner under Section 4 and publication was made under Section 5 of the Act -- There was no violation of any Rules and regulations governing the declaration of the property as Waqf as the suit property was being used for religious purposes by all the muslims.

(Para 15)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34, 44 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 109 -- Suit for permanent injunction – Presumption to revenue records – Rebuttal of -- Plaintiffs were recorded as owners in possession in the relevant revenue record including mutation and jamabandi -- As per the provisions contained in Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries -- Presumption of truth was in favour of the plaintiffs, which could not be rebutted or displaced by the defendant/appellant-Gram Panchayat, by leading any contrary evidence -- In such a situation, plaintiffs were entitled for the benefit of Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the presumption would have been rebutted by the defendants -- Once the plaintiffs were found in possession over the suit land, they were certainly entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.

(Para 7,8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law -- Appellant could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court, while recording its findings of facts – No reference to any question of law much less substantial question of law nor any such question of law has been found involved in the appeal, which is sine qua non for entertaining any regular second appeal, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction -- No interference is warranted in the present appeal.

(Para 11)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 59 -- Judgment and decree – Mutation entries – Limitation to challenge -- Judgment and decree was duly reflected in the revenue record by way of a mutation soon after the decree, and subsequent transfers of the suit land were also well reflected in the revenue record -- Plaintiffs cannot take a plea of ignorance and revert to a plea of the original decree having been obtained by fraud or collusion, at such a belated stage of 17-18 year of such transfer -- Limitation for challenging a judgment and decree of a Court is 3 years.

 (Para 12)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 42(2) – Wajib-ul-arz -- Brick earth – Right of -- Brick earth excavated from private land would not vest in State by virtue of notification dated 01.06.1958 in the absence of express entry in wazib-ul-arz -- Entry in wajib-ul-arz is to the effect that all types of minerals discovered in future will vest in State -- Such a vague entry cannot be used to defeat the non-rebuttable presumption of law created in favour of landowner under Section 42(2) of the Act, 1887 – Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that on the basis of entries in wajib-ul-arz, State has no right to demand royalty on excavation of concerned land – Order upheld.

(Para 14-17)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 44, 45 – Revenue Records – Presumption of truth -- Remedy for aggrieved party – Possession of the plaintiff proved from continuous Jamabandis – Anybody aggrieved by the entries of the revenue record of rights is to file suit for declaration -- Entries in the revenue record never challenged by filing a suit u/s 45 of the Act, 1887 -- Thus, presumption of truth is attached in favour of the plaintiff with regard to his possession.

(Para 12, 14)

A. Revenue Estate – Abadi deh – Shamilat deh -- “Sharat Wazib-ul-arz” – History of – A revenue estate comprises of private agricultural land, besides common lands, called “Shamilat Deh” and land called “Abadi Deh” – Private agricultural land vests in individual proprietors – The common land was kept apart for common use and was called “Shamilat Deh” – Proprietary and possessory rights in “Shamilat Deh”, vested, in absolute terms, in proprietors – Purpose for which a particular parcel of “Shamilat Deh” could be used, the rights of proprietors and non-proprietors therein were set out, in the “Sharat Wazib-ul-arz”.

(Para 17)

B. Sharat Wazib-ul-arz -- A document that records the bye-laws of a revenue estate also called a village administration paper.

(Para 17)

C. Shamilat deh -- “Sharat Wazib-ul-arz” – Common purposes land -- Right of Proprietors – History of – A proprietor was absolute owner of his share in “Shamilat Deh”, held in common with other proprietors and could, depending upon rights recorded in the “Sharat Wazib-ul-arz”, cultivate, sell, mortgage, lease and even partition the common land – The proprietors had a right to exclude non-proprietors from user of this land -- The share holding of a proprietor was calculated as per his proprietary land holdings or the land revenue paid or the numbers of “ploughs” etc. and was represented by expression like “Hasab Rasad Paimana Malkiat”, “Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat”, “Hissa Sola (16), Hasaab Rasad Malguzari etc. that generally followed the words “Shamilat Deh” -- The cultivated land in “Shamilat Deh” was cultivated by proprietors in accordance with their share holdings -- Large tracts of land were left for pastures called “Charagah” or “Charand” -- The “Shamilat Deh” of a revenue estate was used for common purposes like pasture (Charand), Johar (pond) or Chappar, streets paths, cremation grounds, school, chaupals etc., but more often than not its user was confined to proprietors -- The non-proprietors, though, an integral part of agrarian societies, were excluded from ownership and in many villages from the user of common land.

(Para 17)

D. Shamilat Taraf, Shamilat Patti, Pana or Thola – Right of Proprietor -- “Shamilat Taraf, Shamilat Patti, Pana or Thola”, land vests in members of the “Taraf, Patti, Pana or Thola” and not in the entire proprietary body of a village.

(Para 18)

E. Abadi deh – Lal Lakir -- Shamilat deh – Common purposes land – Vesting of -- History of – Though agricultural land of a revenue estate, was demarcated into khewats, khataunis and khasra numbers, the land that fell within the “Lal Lakir” and was called “Abadi Deh” (the residential area of a revenue estate) was, a “no mans land”, for a revenue officer -- A revenue officer did not venture into the “Abadi Deh” situated within the “Lal Lakir”, or demarcate khewats, khatonies or khasra numbers -- A single khewat, khatoni and khasra number was allotted to the “Abadi Deh” -- The normal rule of ownership of land within “Abadi Deh” was and is even today that ownership, follows possession -- However, paths, ponds, cremation grounds, graveyards, streets, chaupals, etc., used for common purposes by residents whether located within or outside the “Abadi Deh” were assigned separate numbers and as they were used for common purposes and were treated as “Shamilat Deh”.

(Para 19)

F. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb)(iv), 18, 23-A -- Common purposes -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan wa Digar Haqdarana Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan – Shamilat deh – Vesting of -- Consolidation Act was enacted in 1948 brought into existence, a new variety of common land, distinct and separate from “Shamilat Deh”, called “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan wa Digar Haqdarana Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba” (for short “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”), to be created after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors -- The Consolidation Act, amongst other matters provided for extension of village abadi, reservation of land for the village panchayat and other common purposes like village path, drains, village wells, ponds, tanks, schools, play grounds, dispensary, hospitals etc. -- Section 18 of the Consolidation Act placed a statutory obligation upon the Consolidation Officer to reserve land for common purposes, if common land in an estate was insufficient -- Section 23-A of the Consolidation Act provides that as soon as a scheme comes into force, “the management and control” of all lands assigned or reserved for common purposes of the village shall vest in the State Government relating to common purposes specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (bb) of Section 2 and in case of any other common purpose, in the panchayat of the village.

(Para 20)

G. Shamilat deh – Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- “Shamilat Deh” and “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” are two distinct varieties of common land, the former was in existence before consolidation whereas the latter was created during consolidation.

(Para 21)

H. Missal Haqiat – Meaning of -- First jamabandi prepared after consolidation.

(Para 27)

I. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) -- Shamilat deh – Panchayat deh – Gram Panchayat deh -- Though, the generic term used for common land is “Shamilat Deh” but revenue authorities tend to use the expression “Panchayat Deh” and “Gram Panchayat Deh” etc., while describing “Shamilat Deh”.

(Para 33)

J. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Common land -- Shamilat deh – Shamilat Patti, Pana, Thola & Taraf -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Common land of village can be divided into three separate and distinct categories, namely, “Shamilat Deh” i.e. land that existed prior to the Consolidation, prior to enactment of the 1953, 1954 and 1961 Acts and came to vest in a Gram Panchayat, under the 1953, 1954 and 1961 Acts, “Shamilat Patti, Pana, Thola & Taraf” etc., which vest in a Gram Panchayat only if this land is used for common purposes of the village, as per the revenue record and land described as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, which was created, under the Consolidation Act and came to vest in a Gram Panchayat or the State Government, for management and control, alone.

(Para 34)

K. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) , Section 2(g) -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb) -- Shamilat deh – Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- The 1961 Act does not enact any provision declaring land reserved as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” as “Shamilat Deh”.

(Para 36)

L. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 11, 13, 13-A -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 -- Shamilat deh -- Title dispute – Power of Consolidating authorities -- Held,

(a) Consolidation authorities, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction;

(b)   Consolidation authorities exercise powers of revenue officers, under the 1887 Act, a power to record and update fiscal entries and prepare record of rights;

(c)   but are not empowered to decide a question of title or vest/divest a party of its title;

(d)   the only authority empowered to determine a question, whether the land is “Shamilat Deh”, between a Gram Panchayat and a private individual was the Civil Court but after enactment of Sections 11, 13 and 13-A of the 1961 Act, the Collector; and

(e)   if the land is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, an appropriate forum.

As a necessary consequence an order passed by the Director Consolidation, u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act holding that the land in dispute vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat is an order passed on an illegal assumption or appropriation of jurisdiction rendering the exercise of powers by the Director Consolidation null and void in its inception and in its operation and at best an order passed by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction that is not binding on the proprietary or possessory rights of the Gram Panchayat or a private individual before a Court or a Tribunal statutorily empowered to decide such a dispute.

(Para 38-52)

M. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7, 11 (Punjab) -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18, 44 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land – Dispute of Title – Jurisdiction of Authorities under 1961 Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court -- “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” land is not included in “Shamilat Deh” -- Collector, u/s 11 of the 1961 Act has no jurisdiction -- Jurisdiction of a Civil Court is not barred -- Only forum available to a person, who raises a dispute regarding title in “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” is the principal Court of civil jurisdiction having jurisdiction in the matter, as provided by Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., a Civil Court -- Where a party seeks to raise a plea that the land is not “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” etc., he shall be obliged to approach a Civil Court, exercising jurisdiction in accordance with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure till such time as the State does not provide an appropriate forum.

(Para 56-63)

N. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7, 11 (Punjab) – Title dispute -- Power of Consolidation Authorities – Decision by Consolidation officer affirmed by High Court and Supreme Court – Effect of --

(1)    The State or its delegate, exercising power under Section 42 and authorities under the Consolidation Act are tribunals of limited jurisdiction.

(2)    Consolidation authorities have no power to decide disputed questions of title in respect of lands, or any right, title or interest therein.

(3)    The State or its delegate, may in the exercise of power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act order correction of errors, in accordance with law;

(4)    While exercising powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, if it is held that the land, in dispute, vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat such an order would be construed to be an opinion recorded by a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and an order so passed would not operate as resjudicata to be binding upon parties or the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, or the jurisdictional forum, constituted for deciding a question of title.

(5)    If a writ petition or special leave petition filed to challenge an order passed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act is dismissed without assigning any reason, by use of the words “dismissed”, “no merits, dismissed” or such like similar expressions, the order passed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act shall not merge in the order passed by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so as to operate as resjudicata or prohibit the Gram Panchayat from approaching the jurisdictional forum, or.

(6)    If an order passed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act has not been challenged in a writ petition or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such order shall be ignored, by the Collector exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, as Section 13-B clearly postulates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or any agreement, instruments, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority, the provisions of the 1961 Act shall prevail.

(7)    If, however, the order passed by the Director Consolidation has been affirmed, by the High Court or in a special leave petition or an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits, the order passed by the Director Consolidation shall be deemed to have merged in orders passed under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India and would, therefore, on the basis of the doctrine of rule estoppel, merger and the order of precedence among courts, prohibit the Gram Panchayat from filing a petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act, the Collector from entertaining such a petition, or where the land is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” the Civil Court.

(Para 64-96)

O. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 42 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7, 11 (Punjab) – Title dispute -- Fraud – Order of Consolidation officer affirmed by High Court and Supreme Court – Effect of – Jurisdiction of Collector – An order obtained by fraud cannot be said to have merged into an order passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court -- Aggrieved party may validly raise a plea of fraud and collusion before the Collector, exercising power u/s 11 of the Act -- If the aggrieved party fails to prove its plea of fraud or collusion, such an order shall be deemed to have merged in orders passed by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

(Para 97-103)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, Section 3 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 3, 4 -- Shamilat deh -- Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat -- Hasab Hissas Mundarja Shajra Nasab -- Words “Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat, “Hasab Hissas Mundarja Shajra Nasab” etc. denote the manner of calculating share holdings of proprietors, and, therefore, do not qualify or indicate the nature of the land -- After enactment of the 1954 Act, all the rights, title or interest, held by proprietors and non-proprietors in “Shamilat Deh, whatever be the words and expressions that follow the words “Shamilat Deh”, came to vest in Gram Panchayat by a statutory declaration contained in Section 3 of the 1954 Act – As land in dispute was “Shamilat Deh”, it came to vest in the Gram Panchayat u/s 3 of the 1954 Act and as Sections 2(g), 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act, do not exclude land described as “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat”, “Shamilat Deh Hasab Hissas Mundarja Shajra Nasab” etc., from “Shamilat Deh”, the land, in dispute, is included in “Shamilat Deh” and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat.

(Para 12-14)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 (Punjab) – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Title dispute -- Banjar Qadim land – Plea of – Writ jurisdiction -- Plea that the land was “Banjar Qadim”, cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 15)

Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A – Civil Court Decree – Decree is much prior to the coming into force the Act of 1961 – Decree passed prior to 4.5.1961 cannot be held to be illegal or void on the ground of section 13-A of 1961 Act.

(Para 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 36 – Mutation – Civil Court -- Determination of disputed mutation – Is to be subject to decree by the civil court – The jurisdiction of civil court is permanent in mutations -- Apart from above legal position vis-à-vis a civil court qua mutation, the civil court’s verdict has to be respected and obeyed.

(Para 13, 14) 

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34-37 – Mutation – Rights over the land in question has been clearly settled in the acquisition proceedings, upto Supreme Court of India – Civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the Trust from dispossessing the petitioner had already been dismissed – Petitioner is no longer having any rights over the land – Sanction of Mutation in favour of the Trust is liable to be upheld.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Punjab Land Records Manual, Paras 7.29 and 7.30 – Correction of Khasra Girdawari/Jamabandi -- Jurisdiction of – Civil Court is having the jurisdiction in the matter of correction of Jamabandi – Jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities is barred, only clerical mistakes can be rectified by the revenue authorities.

Section 45 of the Act, by the very words used therein, bars the jurisdiction of the revenue officers, including the Financial Commissioner, from directing correction in the Jamabandis. The only remedy available to an aggrieved individual, is to file a suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Financial Commissioner was obviously not exercising jurisdiction under the afore-mentioned Act.

The learned Financial Commissioner, apparently, sought to exercise powers under Paras 7.29 and 7.30 of the Punjab Land Records Manual. The said provisions only permit the correction of clerical mistakes appearing in the previous Jamabandi which have crept into the current Jamabandi. As no such clerical mistake existed in the Jamabandi for the year 1997-98, the learned Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under Paras 7.29 and 7.30 of the Punjab Land Records Manual and order correction of the Jamabandi.

 (Para 26, 27)

            Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 45 – Punjab Land Records Manual, Paras 7.29 and 7.30 – Correction of Khasra Girdawari/Jamabandi – Revenue officer cannot sit over the judgment/Decree of the Civil Court – Judgments and decrees of the Civil Court are binding upon the Revenue Officers – Possession as determined by the Civil Court, has to be reflected in the revenue record.

Another aspect of the matter that merits consideration is that the learned Financial Commissioner ignored and, in fact, differed with the judgment of the Civil Court. Admittedly, during the pendency of the revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, the Civil Court had decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. While examining the judgment of the Civil Court, the learned Financial Commissioner held as follows:--

“--------Insofar as the Civil Court’s orders are concerned, the restraint order against the respondents is based on the entries in the Jamabandi. It is, however, not clear from the orders of the Civil Court as to who is in actual cultivating possession of the land--------“

The Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the Civil Court and hold that it was not clear from the orders of the Civil Court as to who was in actual cultivating possession of the suit land. The judgment and decrees of the Civil Court are binding upon Revenue Officers, including the Financial Commissioner. The scheme of the Act confers primacy on the judgments and decrees of the Civil Court regarding questions decided therein. Possession, as determined by a Civil Court, has to be reflected in the revenue record.

 (Para 28)

Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para 349-365 – Khasra Girdawari – Banjar Qadim -- Application for the correction of Khasra Girdawri in respect of Banjar Qadim land could not be entertained -- Entries of possession of Column 3 of the register are exclusively with reference to the cultivation of land i.e. to show who has cultivated the land for a particular crop -- It is not envisaged that the Khasra Girdawari register should show the possession of land with reference to any activity other than the cultivation of crops.

(Para 1, 2)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 35,36 – Mutation – Mutation sanctioned on the basis of Will -- Will challenged by way of Suit – Attesting witnesses not examined – Even the Will was not placed on file by the defendant -- Sanction of mutation on the basis of Will was fraudulent and bogus transaction.

(Para 6, 8)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34-37 – Mutation of inheritance -- Will – The evidence of the deed writer and marginal witnesses are not sufficient for sanctioning mutation on the  basis of unregistered Will -- Will must also be free of suspicious circumstances – Non-mentioning of fact of having three sons and two daughters in the Will and disinheriting them without giving any reason –  Is by self is an extremely suspicious circumstance -- Mutation on the basis of Will declined -- Mutation of inheritance is ordered to be sanctioned.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 34, 35, 36, 37 – Sanction of Mutation – Mutation cannot be sanctioned on the basis of photocopy of the unregistered will and agreement to sell -- Photocopy is not permissible in the absence of original thereof.

The Divisional Commissioner has held that the will dated 10.3.1989 has been proved by the marginal witnesses and the scribe of the will. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as the District Collector have sanctioned the mutation on the basis of will dated 30.10.1990, which in fact is an agreement to sell and not a will. He has also held that only photocopy has been placed on file whereas the original document has not been produced. The Divisional Commissioner has, therefore, rightly set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as of the District Collector since both are based on a document which has not been produced in original. The same is, accordingly, upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.

(Para 3)