Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No.2512 of 2012, decided on 8th November, 2013.

----Ss. 44, 161 & 164---Mutation---Challenging mutation on allegations of cheating and fraud---Respondent/owner of land in dispute, alleged that she was an illiterate and naive lady; and petitioner who was her nephew, managed the attestation of mutation of her land in his favour by obtaining her thumb impressions through cheating and fraud---Appeal by respondent lady, had concurrently been accepted by two authorities below---Validity---Enquiry report submitted by Tehsildar had shown that transaction and sanctioned mutation in favour of the petitioner, was quite lawful and it was proved that consideration amount was paid to respondent/owner---Lawful mutation entered/passed, could not be withdrawn or cancelled---Accepting revision petition filed by the petitioner, impugned orders passed by authorities were set aside, in circumstances. Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Petitioner. Sarfraz Nonari for Respondents.

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 14-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Arguments heard and record perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned lower court did not apply its independent judicial mind, while passing the impugned order. The revenue courts function in summary nature, but, the question involved in this case required recording of evidence as the respondents alleged fraud in their appeal, which could be made only in the civil court. Therefore, the revenue courts assumed the non-existing powers. The respondent had received consideration, which was admitted by her in the rapt roznamcha waqiati No.26, dated 15-9-2009 regarding sale of the land. The respondent appeared before the patwari with her free will, where she put thumb impressions on the relevant papers. The learned lower courts did not keep in mind these vital facts of the case while passing the impugned orders. The said mutation was attested in open assembly, therefore, it was valid in the eyes of law. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for respondents Mst. Zuhran Bibi etc. contended that the petitioner is nephew of the respondent, who tried to grab the land of respondent by playing fraud. The respondent is illiterate and have lady, who have been deprived of her land without any consideration. The respondent did not intend to sell the land in question to the petitioner, who managed mutation No.941 in his favour by obtaining thumb impressions of the respondent through cheating and fraud. The appeal of the respondent was rightly and justifiably accepted by learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue) and that order was upheld by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders, which were passed after hearing contention of the parties. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders and written arguments submitted by the parties. Brief of the matter is that Mst. Zuhran Bibi present respondent was owner of land measuring 3-kanals, 16-marlas of land situated in Chak No.6/DH, and measuring 3-kanals, 7-marlas, situated in 18/DH Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal. Out of this, Muhammad Sadiq present petitioner, who is real nephew of the respondent got a piece of land measuring 3-K, 16-marlas transferred in his favour vide Mutation No.941 dated 29-9-2009 against consideration of Rs.100000 and remaining land measuring 3-kanals, 7 marlas was transferred in favour of Abdul Ghafar etc. vide mutation No. 945, dated 29-9-2009 against a consideration of Rs.7,00000. The present respondent submitted an application for stoppage of attestation of the said mutation before the learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Kabirwala on 24-9-2009, which was entertained on 26-9-2009. However, he Revenue Officer concerned attested the said mutation on 29-9-2009. Then the present respondent filed an appeal before learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), which was accepted vide order dated 12-7-2010. The operative part of the order is as under:-- Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, which was dismissed on 14-9-2012. The operative part of the order is as under:-- In addition to above, I have also gone through the enquiry report conducted by Tehsildar, Kabirwala, which showed that the transaction and sanction of mutation No.941 dated 29-9-2009 in favour of Muhammad Sadiq petitioner and in favour of Abdul Ghafar etc. vide mutation No.495 dated 9-9-2009 by Mst.Zohran Bibi the present respondent, is quite lawful. It is also proved that consideration of an amount of Rs.100000 was paid to Zohran Bibi, the present respondent and an amount of Rs. 7,00000 by Abdul Ghafar etc. The allegation is that the amount paid to her was taken away by his nephew Muhammad Sadiq, the present petitioner. Simply, on this contention, the lawful mutation entered/passed cannot be withdrawn or cancelled. If someone has done any wrong to him/her and snatched any amount, which tantamount to criminal offence, the party may invoke appropriate forum of law. Hence, the revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 14-9-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan is set aside. HBT/14/Rev. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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