' This is a revision petition against the order dated 20.10-1976 of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner and maintaining the order of Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar regarding mutation in Record of Rights in respect of S. No, 143/A and others of Deb Banthri, Taluka Khipro in favour of the respondents
2. Facts of the case are already given in the order dated 15-7-1976 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and need not be reproduced.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has raised the same points that he raised in the lower Courts. He mainly contends that the land under dispute was leased out to Mohsin and others for 5 years.
During the currency of the lease, the respondents got this land sold to them through registered deed without knowledge of the petitioner who is a Pardanashln lady. Had the entry in the Record of Rights been made in Jalsa-l-am as required under section 42 (8) of the Land Revenue Act, the lady would have come to know of the fraud committed on her. Since the entry has not been made in Jalsa-i-am, the mutation become null and void as it is in violation of the mandatory provision of section 42 (8) of the Land Revenue Act. He further contends that this case does not come within the purview of sub-clause (7) of section 42 of Land Revenue Act as held by the learned Additional Commissioner. Even in case of sale through registered deed, the mutation entry is to be made in the common assembly. Sub-clause (7) of section 42 dispenses with the presence of the person whose right has been acquired but does not dispense with the enquiry in Jalsa-i-am In this case when the petitioner ban challenged the registered deed on the ground that it was fraud committed on her, the Revenue 0 cer was not bound to effect mutation on the basis of registered deed, particularly when the possession was not delivered to the respondents. In this case the land was on lease with possession to other persons, hence the question of possession to the alleged purchaser did not arise.
4. The counsel for the respondent contends that the sale deed has been registered in October 1974.
If any fraud was committed on the petitioner, she should have challenged it in the proper forum Le.
The civil Court which alone is competent to invalidate the registered deeds. After registration the Sub-registrar sends 'Fard' to the Mukhtiarkar and the Mukhtiarkar is bound to make entry in the Record of Rights unless there is an order by competent Court to the effect that the registered deed is null and void. In support of his contention he has quoted PLD 1964 Rev.
16. The possession of the land is with the respondents and they are paying land revenue.
5. I have heard the Advocates for the parties. The main point involved in this case is whether in cases of registered deeds or decrees of Courts or orders of Courts, the Revenue Officer is suposed to make enquiry in the common assembly as envisaged in subsection (8) of section 42 or not.
Subsection (7) reads as under.
"Except in case of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under subsection (6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired ..... ."
' This clearly shows that the Legislature has made exception in cases of inheritence. Registered deeds, orders or decrees of Courts. In all other cases presence of the person whose right has been acquired is necessary, identification by responsible persons is necessary and the enquiry in the common assembly as envisaged under subsection (8; of section 12 is necessary. But in these four cases of inheritance, registration, order of Court or decree of Court, neither presence of the person whose right has been acquired is necessary nor any enquiry in the common assembly is necessary. Even otherwise there will be no sense in inquiring into the authenticity of registered deed or order of the Court or decree of the Court in the common assembly. In case of registration, Fards are received by the Mukhtiarkar who passes them on to the Tapedar for necessary entries in the Record of Rights. Similarly, in cases of orders of Court or decree of Court, they are sent to the Mukhtiarkar who passes the order and sends to the Tapedar for necessary entry. The Mukhtiarkar or any Revenue Officer is not competent to enquire into the authenticity of registered deed or validity of the order of the Court. It has been clearly laid down that by refusing to act on registered sale deed, a Revenue Officer will have to assume the role of a civil Court which is beyond his jurisdiction. When a deed is duly registered, the burden of proving that it does not contain real transaction lies on the person who alleges it and this matter is to be adjudicated by a competent Court of Civil Jurisdistion. In this particular case 288-08 acres of land have been sold through registered deed for Rs, 80,000. Now whether there is impersonation or fraud has been committed on the pardanashin lady and whether she received the consideration actually or not, all these are to be sorted out and determined by the civil Court. Moreover mutation does not create title in favour of and person, The mutation proceedings are intended primarily for fiscal purpose for the collection of Land Revenue etc. And they by no means are judicial proceedings in which the rights arc determined. The legal position being such, I maintain the order of the lower Court. If the petitioner feels that fraud has been committed on her, she can go to civil Court and challenge the authenticity of registered sale deed there.