' Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad All and Lal Khan obtained a loan amounting to Rs,76,462 for the purchase of tractor from A.D.B.P. Against their agricultural land (mortgaged). They deposited firs,t instalment amounting to Rs,14,100 on 4-7-1982. Thereafter, they defaulted and Muhammad Sharif died in the year 1984. Agricultural Development Bank issued notice to Lal Khan, the other /03.13CC for payment of the loan. The said Lal Khan'filed civil suit but did not succeed. He then filed review application wllich was also dismissed on 17-11-1985. Later on it transpired that mutation of mortgage had not been entered. So, the Bank applied for the sanction of mutation. Subsequently, Lal Khan too passed away and his legal heirs, filed an application to the DC/Collector to the effect _ fraud had been committed with Lal Khan by Muhammad Sharif, second loanee, with the connivance of Revenue Field Staff and officials of the Bank. The matter was thrashed out and the contention of the applicant was not acceded to. Mutation No,9659 was entered and sanctioned on 29-11.1986 in favour of the Bank. That mutation was challenged in appeal before the Collector who vide his order dated 4-3-1987 remanded the case to AC-I for fresh decision. On remand, the AC-I on 27-8-1987 upheld his earlier order. That order was assailed in appeal, by the petitioners, before the Collector who vide his order dated 21-10-1987 accepted the same and directed the respondent (Bank) to await the decision of criminal case regarding alleged fraud. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was accepted on 9-4-1989 and the order of the Collector was set aside and Mutation No,9659 was ordered to hold the field. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967,
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the impugned order was against law. The learned Additional Commissioner had totally ignored the fact that a criminal case under sections 420, 461 and 471, P.P.C. Was still pending in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Lal Khan deceased was an old and blind man and he had been defrauded by Muhammad Sharif in connivance with the lower functionaries and employees of the bank and that the learned Additional Commissioner had erred in holding that the material fact in this case was the creation of charge and that the Mutation entered and confirmed by the Assistant. Commissioner.The petitioners, based their case on the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector dated 21-10- 1987.
3. The learned counsel for the -respondents maintained that Lal Khan and Muhammad Sharif had jointly applied for the Bank Loan and after observing the requisite formilities, the loan was sanctioned and issued on Agricultural Pass Books. One instalment of that loan was also paid to the bank.. Lal Khan had died in 1985 and Muhammad Sharif somewhere in 1984. After the death of both these pers,ons, the petitioners, applied that Lal Khan had not obtained any loan. The petitioners, had also filed a writ petition which was withdrawn by them later. Regarding the delay in entering the mutation, the learned counsel for the respondent explained that it was not the policy of the Bank in 1980 to get the copies of mutations of small loans. The bank indentified the applicants for loan through the Agricultural Pass Books and presentation of National Identity. Card was also not necessary. In the present case the Agricultural Pass Book, containing Lal Khan's photographs, was presented for getting the loan and Lal Khan himself thumb-marked all the requisite documents.
The pass-book is deemed to be a title deed and is accepted as such by the bank for granting a loan advanced to a landowner on the security of such land entered therein under section 4, subsection (3) of the Loans for Agricultural Purposes Act, 1973.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record and the various other relevant documents produced before me. It is significant to note that Lal Khan deceased, during his lifetime had raised the matter of fraud etc. In the Civil Court and his suit was dismissed after his death on 4-12-1986 as withdrawn. His thumb-marks on various documents are also not denied but the plea of fraud is being emphasized to escape Lal Khan's liability. Lal Khan's alleged blindness has also been stressed although no such evidence is on record. It has not been satisfactorily explained as to why an old and blind man thumb-marked so many documents to get admitted to a hospital (which actually did not take place). There is no evidence of his old age either; from the photo-copy of the pass-book, he does not appear to be an old man who might have reached the borders, of senility as such. It has rightly been pointed out in the impugned order that the mutation does not confer any title and it should have been entered as soon as the loan was given, but it could not be done due to the apparent slackness on the part of the Bank Officials and the Revenue Staff.
Attestation of the mutation is a summary proceeding and intricate and complex questions of law and fact cannot be inquired into by the attesting Revenue Officer. If the petitioners, allege that a fraud had been committed, it is for them to prove that allegation in a competent Court of law. As far as the Mutation No,9659 dated 29-11-1986 is concerned, it has been correctly entered and attested. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.