' Bani Begum mother of the respondent was proposed land for allotment, which was not confirmed because allotments had been banned meanwhile. On a Writ Petition to the High Court the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner by the High Court on 14-12-1977 in Writ Petition No, 577-R of 1977, in which the petitioner (now respondent) was ordered to appear before the AC/DSC 4-1-1978.
2. The petitioner did not act for 9 years, but after 9 years applied to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the High Court's remand order.
3. This application was still pending when the Attorney of Bani Begum applied to the D.C/District Collector on 25-2-1987 in pursuance of the remand order. A Mutation No,333 was entered on 12-3- 1987, but was not attested.
4.
4. Another application was given to the AC/Collector on 23-4-1987 by the same Attorney. In this application it was claimed that the land had been allotted and the mutation should be sanctioned.
The A.C/Collector ordered on 26-4-1987 that action should be taken according to law.
5. The Collector ordered on 24-1-1988 that the mutation might be reviewed. Assistant Collector-II Grade on 28-1-1988 cancelled mutation No,333,. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner on 20-12-1988 who accepted the appeal and restored Mutation No,333. This is the impugned order.
ARGUMENTS.
6. The following arguments will determine the merits of this case.
(I) The most important fact to determine is whether the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner ever passed an order of allotment in favour of the respondent in pursuance of the High Court's order of remand. I have seen the original R.L.II Register. The supposed order of confirmation of allotment dated 24-12-1980 is terribly overwritten. Even the date has been overwritten, and the signatures of the Officer are not clear. The presence of the party seeking confirmation has also not been indicated. On the face of it, it is not clear whether this order and signatures are actually in the hand of the then AC/DSC are not. Considering other factors, to which I will advert hereunder, the so-called order of confirmation is so doubtful that it would be difficult to accept it as genuine.
(II) The Attorney of the respondent in his application to the D.C/Collector on 25-2-1987 admits that the respondent is still pursuing her case under the High Court order of remand. This stand also contradicts any confirmation.
(III) It is significant that the respondent did not act for 9 long years to get her wanda confirmed in accordance with the order of the High Court, by which she had been directed to appear before the AC/DSC on 4-1-1978. This delay has not been explained.
(IV) Again it is surprising that she remained quiet for 7 years after the order of confirmation, and suddenly started acting to get a mutation sanctioned in 1987. The question is, what was the respondent doing before 19801987?
(V) The Assistant Collector Grade II while sanctioning the mutation does not mention the order of the DSC at all. The A.C/Collector/DSC on 26-4-1987 only says that action should be taken according to law: it was necessary for the sanctioning authority to mention under what authority Mutation No,333 was being sanctioned.
(vi)The annual register of mutations for the period 1-7-1986 to 30-6-1987 has any entry saying that Mutation No,333 was rejected and not approved.
(VII) I have seen the original mutation. The order on " " begins on the back page but has been brought overleaf unnecessarily, when there was ample space on the back page. The purpose clearly is to cover some words on the first page of the mutation which have been removed through some device.
(VIII). The " " was kept by the AC-II-Grade with him for five months before it was deposited with Daftar Kanungo whereas normally it should have been deposited within a month. It has been alleged by the counsel for the State, and not denied, that Bani Begum died in 1966. A death certificate has also been produced. It is surprising that after her death no successors have been appointed and the Attorney has continued to act in her name.
7. In view of the above arguments, I hold that so far there has been no regular order of confirmation by the AC/DSC Mutation No,333 was wrongly sanctioned and has been correctly cancelled. In view of this I accept the revision petition and set aside the order of the Commissioner, dated 20-12-1988.
8. However, the present order has nothing to say about any proceedings that may ensue in pursuance of the order of the high Court in Writ Petition No, 577-R of 1977. It would be for the proper authorities to decide on the viability, legality etc. Of any proceedings that may be started or opposed by any party as a consequence of the High Court order. A.A./373/R .