HANIFAN BIBI Versus NOOR AHMAD
ORDER
Brief facts of this case are that the petitioners are daughters and respondent is son of Mst: Sairan who was owner of one‑half out of 202 kanals‑15 marlas of land situated in Chak No.37/DNB, Tehsil Yazman. According to the petitioners, by wary of oral Tamleek (she) gifted her landed property measuring 101 kanals‑7 marlas in favour of her daughters, the present petitioners, vide Mutation No. 193 sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 23‑5‑1982. That order was challenged in appeal, by the respondent before AC/Collector who vide his order dated 30‑8‑1989 cancelled the mutation holding that on 16‑2‑1982 the Revenue Officer had directed that Mst. Sairan should appear before him but the Revenue Officer in violation of his earlier order, sanctioned the mutation on 23‑5‑1982 whereas the donor (Mst. Sairan) had expired on 15‑5‑1981. The case was remanded for fresh decision. That order was assailed in appeal by the petitioners but to no avail. Hence this revision petition a/s 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. '
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Mst. Sairan Bibi, mother of the parties, informed the Palwari of her intention to gift her property in favour of the petitioners. Her statement was recorded by the Revenue Officer on 24‑3‑1981 in the presence of lambardar etc., in the Tehsil Office and the relevant mutation was sanctioned on 23‑5‑1982 in the relevant revenue estate. After approximately 7 years, the respondent challenged that mutation and the Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Revenue Officer. The petitioners' appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The gift had been completed in all respects before the donor's death on 15‑5‑1981. Delay on the part of the Revenue Officer in attestation of the mutation was not the petitioners' responsibility and the petitioners cannot be penalized therefore. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained in rebuttal that death of Sairan Bibi is an admitted fact who had died on 15‑5‑1981 before the attestation of the mutation. Mutation No.193 was presented on 16‑2‑1982 before the Revenue Officer who directed production. of the donor. However, the factum of death was concealed by the petitioners. The persons who had allegedly identified Sairan Bibi before the Revenue Officer on 24‑3‑1981 never appeared subsequently. The petitioners have stated that their statements were recorded in Chak No.34/DNB, whereas the suit land is situated in Chak No.37/DNB. The learned counsel further maintained that all the provisions of Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act were mandatory and if the mutation could not be attested within the prescribed time, then the cause of delay had to be reported to the Collector which had not been done in the present case. The petitioners were guilty of fraud and their revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is an admitted fact that the donor had died before the attestation of the mutation. The statement of the donor was recorded by the Revenue Officer on 24‑3‑1981 on the identification of the lambardar. However, the Revenue Officer did not proceed to attest the mutation and adjourned his decision till a subsequent date for attestation in the revenue estate concerned. This fact suggests ipso facto that the Revenue Officer was not satisfied regarding the identification or intentions of the donor. Section 42(10) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act requires that all such mutations which are not attested within a period of 3 months should tie reported to the Collector. In the present case the pending mutation was not reported to the Collector which further casts some doubt on the transaction itself. Sairan Bibi was not alive or present before the Revenue Officer when the mutation was attested on 23‑5‑1982. The Revenue Officer could have attested the mutation if it was based on a registered deed under subsection (7) of Section 42 but not otherwise. The mutation has therefore been correctly set aside and the case ‑ remanded to the Revenue Officer for fresh decision after hearing the parties. No illegality or irregularity can be found in the impugned orders. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
A.A./488/R Revision dismissed