02/02/2024
C.R. No. 174 / 2017
Nazeer Ahmad VERSUS Muhammad Sadiq (deceased) through L.Rs. and 2 others
2024 M L D 18
Transaction recorded in Roznamcha and mutation are required to be independently proved....
Significance, contours and sanctity of a transaction recorded in Roznamcha including its mode of proof and evidentiary value......
The provisions of Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (the “Act”) (as it existed on the date of the impugned mutation) deal with the process of making that part of periodic records which relates to land owners. Sub-Section (1) thereof provides that any person acquiring any right in an estate as a landowner, or a tenant by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise for a fixed term exceeding one year, shall, within three months from the date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of the estate. The Patwari is required to record such report in Roznamcha in the prescribed manner, provide copies thereof to the person making the report and send a copy of the report to the office of the concerned Union Administration. Reports in Roznamcha are recorded in accordance with procedure stipulated in the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968. The Patwari in terms of Section 42(3) of the Act is obligated to enter reports recorded in Roznamcha in the register of mutations. However, if no such report has been made to the Patwari, he is required to himself make an entry in Roznamcha and register of mutations respecting the acquisition of any such right which he has reason to believe to have taken place. It is also necessary for the Patwari to display the report recorded by him in the prescribed manner as ordained by Section 42(4) of the Act. If the Patwari fails to perform his duty, the Revenue Officer upon the report of the concerned person is required to cause such report to be recorded in the register of mutations in terms of Section 42(5) of the Act. The Revenue Officer is obliged from time to time to inquire into veracity of all entries incorporated in the register of mutations including such reports which ought to have been recorded by the Patwari and in turn, is competent in each case to make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record of the rights acquired as per the command of Section 42(6) of the Act. Importantly, Section 42(7) postulates that except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under Section 42(6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or members of the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council concerned whose signatures or thumb impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer on the register of mutations. Further, such inquiry is required to be made in the common assembly in the estate to which the subject matter mutation relates as required by Section 42(8) of the Act. After compliance of the aforesaid procedure, an entry with respect to an order of the Revenue Officer made under Section 42(6) of the Act is incorporated in the periodical record as ordained by Section 42(9) of the Act through which right of the acquirer is recognized by the omission from such record of any entry in any record previously prepared, which by reason of the acquisition, has ceased to be correct. The Revenue Officer is required within three months to make an order under Section 42(6) of the Act after incorporation of an entry in Roznamcha or register of mutations, failing which he is obligated to report the reason of delay to the Collector in the prescribed manner as per the mandate of Section 42(10) of the Act. The Revenue Officer is also required to transmit the gist of an order made by him under Section 42(6) of the Act to the person whose right has been acquired and to the concerned Union Administration in the prescribed manner in terms of Section 42(11) of the Act.
It follows from the above analysis that Section 42 of the Act has prescribed a complete code for transfer of rights of land owners in order to ensure transparency and avoid chances of fraud and manipulation. The recording of report in Roznamcha regarding change in rights of a land owner is a first step to trigger the process of transfer of right. However, mutation is sanctioned by an order of the Revenue Officer made in presence of the person whose right is acquired once he has been identified by two respectable persons and an inquiry in this behalf is conducted in common assembly of the concerned estate. Thus, an entry recorded in Roznamcha is merely a ministerial act performed by the Patwari which is incorporated in the register of mutations culminating into an order of passing of mutation under Section 42(6) of the Act by the Revenue Officer.
It is now well settled that in case of a challenge to the transaction and the mutation, both the transaction and the mutation would be required to be independently proved. As the mutation itself is not an instrument of title, therefore, a mutation in the light of specific denial by the owner does not have probative value as the presumption stands rebutted. Similarly, entries recorded in Roznamcha if not proved to have been made at the instance of the vendor or to have been signed by him carry no evidentiary value.
