Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 11 of 1949‑50, decided on 27th February 1950, from order of the Commissioner, Lahore, dated 26th November, 1949.
S. 37‑Mutation of exchange of, Khasra numbers entered on score of ‑ registered deed‑Khasra numbers subsequently changed by Patwari with out Plausible explanation‑Patwari lead no business to do so.
It will not, be necessary to recapitulate here the facts of the case which are clearly set forth in the Commis sioner's order dated 15th December 1947, but I shall set forth briefly the argument advanced by Muhammad Din, Patwari, which according to him necessitated the change of the Khasra Numbers in the mutation.
2. This mutation of exchange No. 823 of village Mattu Bhaike, Tahsil and District Gujranwala, was drawn up by Karam Chand, Patwari on the 18th February, 1943, on tire score of a registered deed dated the 8th February, 1943. According to the registered‑deed Khasra Nos. 1260 and 1264 were to bb‑transferred by one Dalip Singh, to Mangal Singh and Solakhan Singh. Karam Chand was relieved by the petitioner who effected a change to the Khasra Numbers 1260 and 1264 to 1844 and 1845 by scoring out the previous Khasra Numbers and initialing the entries thus made. The Mutation Officer, a Sikh, sanctioned the mutation of the change of Khasra numbers without seeing the: registered‑deed hence the institution of a complaint by the party affected by the order. The contention of the peti tioner, that a. change in the Khasra numbers was justified having due regard to the possession of the person transferring the Khasra numbers, has been rightly rejected by the Collector as ridiculous and absurd. It is true that the petitioner had no business to modify or alter the contents of the registered‑deed without any plausible explanation which is not forthcoming in this case add the Commissioner, has, to my mind with ample justification thrown out the appeal of petitioner:
3. I have given the matter my most careful consideration and I see no justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner and I must, therefore, reject this revision petition.
Applicant be informed.
H. M. A. Revision rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer