Find a Lawyer

Revision, decided on 14th December 1965.

Final order or decree of Court and not decision on individual issues material for purposes of review‑Punjab Land Revenue Act (XV1T of 1887), S. 37.

Yaqub Ali Shah for Petitioners.

Rehmat Ali for Respondent.

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 28th of May 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was rejected.

The facts of the case are that a mutation of sale was sanctioned for an oral sale from one Jalla in favour of Tauraiz, respondent. The petitioners filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the sale of land in question was null and void as the property was ancestral. The suit was dismissed. A finding was, however, given to the effect that the sale of the land was not necessary and was without consideration and was also against the provision of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. On the basis of this finding, the petitioners applied to the Collector for the review of mutation of sale. This permission was granted and the Assistant Collector 11 Grade cancelled the mutation on the 6th of January 1963. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted it. The petitioner then went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, but it was rejected. Hence this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has urged that the sale was fraudulent. This point is immaterial so far as this revision is concerned for the simple reason that after the dismissal of the civil suit, the petitioners took no action to get the Civil Court orders set aside. For review purposes it is the final order or the decree that is material and decision of the Court on individual issues cannot be the basis of further action by the revenue officers. In this case there is no decree or an, order of a Civil Court. Provision for section 37 of the Land Revenue Act will not be applicable and the entries in the revenue record cannot be varied. In this case the review was made on a finding and not on the final orders or the decree given by the Civil Court. It was therefore unjustified.

As regards the sale being against the provision of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, I find that the mutation was affected on the 12th September 1960 but by 28‑2‑1960 the respondent had become an owner in this village. It is true that the area involved was less than a subsistence holding but under paragraph 25 (4) the whole of the subsistence holding can be sold provided the buyer is an owner of the same village. In this case both the conditions were satisfied and it is therefore clear that the sale was not against the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64.

In these circumstances I do not find any justification for interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

K. M. A. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.