Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 65 of 1958‑59, decided on 1st August 1959.

para.15- Gifts of land in favour of son, daughter and wife‑Validation -Entry in Roznamcha Karguzari establishing that mutation of gifts was entered on 2nd October 1958‑Gifts directed to be validated.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against an order dated the 1st June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he refused to validate the gifts made by the appellant in favour of his son, three daughters and wife.

The facts of the case are that the appellant moved for the validation of these gifts. The Deputy Land Commissioner recommended validation but the Land Commissioner rejected it on the ground that there were certain facts which threw very considerable doubts on the date of the entry of mutations relating to these gifts. In his opinion, the scrutiny of the record established that it was done most probably after the 8th of October 1958. He, therefore, refused validation. Hence this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and have examined the Patwari and his records.

It is true that the entry in respect of the date of Mutation No. 6051 was first made in pencil and was subsequently written with ink but this circumstance alone would not make the entry suspicious.

The mutation dealing with these gifts was' entered at No. 6052. There was one Mutation No. 6051 entered earlier and Mutation No. 6053 was entered on 15th October 1958. All these three mutations were seen by the Girdawar on 16th October 1958. It is true, as remarked by the learned Land Commissioner, that the ink used in respect of the date of Mutation No. 6052 wag different from that used in dealing with Mutation No. 6051 and Mutation No. 6053. This alone would not make the entry suspicious when I find that there are no signs of the Mutation Register having been tampered with. At any rate, if the Girdawar was trying to collude with the appellant, he would have signed and used the same ink in all these three mutations. A possible explanation is that, when the Girdawar came to Mutation No. 6052, he changed the pen. At any rate, this circumstance will not justify casting any suspicions against Mutation No. 6052.

The learned Land Commissioner was justified in remarking that the Assistant Collector saw Mutations Nos. 6051, 6053, 6054 and a number of sales on 15th January 1959, but Mutation No. 6052 was not seen by him. A possible explanation is that instructions were issued by certain Deputy Land Commissioners that no action should be taken in respect of mutations relating to alienations made by Zamindars likely to be affected by the Martial Law Regulation No. 64. In view of this explanation one will not be justified in drawing any adverse conclusions against the appellant on account of the fact that this mutation was not seen by the Assistant Collector on 15th January 1959, along with others.

So far as Roznamcha Waqiati is concerned, it is true, as stated by the learned Land Commissioner, that the Patwari did not make any entry on 2nd October 1958, about Mutation No. 6052. I have, however, seen the Roznamcha Karguzari. Against 2nd October 1958, the number of mutation last entered on that date is given 6052. There appears to be no overwriting and this entry does establish that Mutation No. 6052 was entered on 2nd, October 1958.

It is also true that mutations entered in register on 15^th October 1958, are mentioned in the Patwari's Roznamcha Waqiati. It has been explained by the Patwari that, in respect of oral transactions the entries were not made by him in the Roznamcha Waqiati but in the case of register of transactions, entries were made in the Roznamcha Waqiati. Absence of entry about Mutation No. 6052 in Roznamcha Waqiati under 2nd October 1958, could not, therefore, be a suspicious circumstance specially when entry about this mutation did find a place in the Roznamcha Karguzari.

The learned Land Commissioner also remarked that, while the Patwari conducted the Girdawari on Qistwar basis, the Khasra Girdawari of this village was on Killabandi basis. I have seen the relevant Khasra Girdawari: So far as Kharif 1958, is concerned, the Khasra Girdawari as well as the Girdawari actually done is on the Qistwar basis. It is only from Rabi 1959, that the killabandi numbers have been adopted both for preparing the khasra girdawari and for conducting the actual girdawari.

It is also correct that for Rabi 1959, the cultivation entries were made in pencil but the names of persons who were benefited from the gifts mentioned above were written in ink. It has been explained that the Patwari makes pencil entries in respect of the things he notices at the spot. So far as ownership is concerned, he makes entries after returning from the spot. For such entries, there is no need to make them in pencil first and then make in pucca.

It was also remarked by the learned Land Commissioner that, in the old Mutation Register, the Patwari did not keep any date on the entry although it ran from page 14 to the last page of the Mutation Register. The Patwari has explained that it was an oversight and, by mistake, he thought that writing the date on page 13 would suffice.

In view of these circumstances, I find that all the objections raised by the learned Land Commissioner have been satisfactorily explained. A reference to the Roznamcha Karguzari establishes beyond doubt that the entry about this mutation was made on 2nd October 1958. The Deputy Land Commissioner while making his recommendations for the validation of these gifts remarked that the alienor could not appear before the Revenue Officer on account of his engagement in connection with the programme of the Governor's visit to the Dera Ghazi Khan District in the beginning of October, 1958. He has also mentioned about some local instructions in respect of transfers of land which would explain why the Assistant Collector did not touch this mutation (No. 6052) on 15th January 1959. I, therefore, accept the appeal and direct that these five gifts should be validated.

The learned Land Commissioner has also remarked that proper enquiry should be made as to the circumstances in which this mutation was entered. In view of the above analysis, such an enquiry will not be necessary and should not be made.

S. Q. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.