' The dispute is about Mutation No,2873 sanctioned on 6-4-1994.
2. The appellant/vendor went in appeal against this mutation to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons)/Collector. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) Collector, accepted the appeal on 7-2-1995 and set aside mutation No,2873.
3. The respondents went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), who by his order dated 2-4-1995 set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector, and restored Mutation No,2873.
4. The present appeal is against order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation).
5. The Revenue Officer sanctioned the mutation on 6-4..1994. However, on that date neither the vendor nor the identifiers were present. He merely relied on the presence of the vendor and the identifiers on the earlier date namely 16-3-1993, when his predecessor-in-office had only passed an interim order, but not sanctioned the mutation. This is a clear violation of section 42(7) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which lay down that the Revenue Officer shall make the order of sanction in the presence of the person whose right has been transferred, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons. This provision is mandatory, which means that when the order of sanction in A being made the vendor and the identifiers must be present. In the present case, their earlier presence has been relied upon. This does not fulfil the requirement of the law. The presence of the vendor when only an interim order was passed cannot be construed as presence for the purpose of section 42(7). In view of this the order of sanction dated 6-4-1994 was bad in law and therefore, ab initio.
6. It is strange that the Revenue officer on 16-3-1993 made an interim order in the presence of the parties, even before the ' ' of the Girdawar. This shows indecent haste.
7. The Revenue Officer did not sanction the mutation on 16-4-1994 the revenue fee had not been paid. But even on 6-4-1994 the revenue fee had not been paid, and yet he sanctioned the mutation on that date.
8. The order of the Additional Commissioner is also bad. The order of sanction dated 6-4-1994 was unlawful and there was no question of any fraud, therefore, it was not a case to be referred to a Civil Court. The question of fraud arises when an order is on the face of it regular, but fraud has been alleged by one party against an other. Moreover, the Additional Commissioner strangely enough says that the order of the Collector is summary in manner, whereas the fact of the matter is that the order of the Collector is fairly elaborate while the order of the Additional Commissioner himself is summary.
9. In view of the above, I would accept the present appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 2-4-1995.
On the point that the presence of the vendor and the identifiers is necessary on the day a mutation is sanctioned. Their presence on an earlier date does into fulfil the mandatory condition laid down in section 42(7) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.