Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No.2039 of 2012, decided on 23rd July, 2014.

----Ss. 39, 44 & 164---Mutation---Cancellation of---Claim of the petitioners was that their father purchased property in dispute and possession of the same, though was handed over to their father, but mutation in that respect was not sanctioned despite repeated requests made by the petitioners---Petitioners alleged that Revenue Officer had cancelled the mutation without notice to the petitioners---Revenue Officer on appeal was directed to sanction the mutation---Respondents assailed said order which was accepted and impugned order was dismissed---Respondents also claimed that land in dispute was subsequently purchased by them from the owner thereof---In another litigation pertaining to the same disputed property, and between the same parties regarding ejectment, the matter went up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court ordered the petitioners to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property to respondents/landlords---Review petition filed by the petitioners against said order of the Supreme Court, was pending adjudication before the Supreme Court---Where, the matter of title of disputed property had been settled while deciding the issue of ejectment and respondents had been declared owners of the land by the Supreme Court and review petition of the petitioners was pending before the Supreme Court---Board of Revenue disposed of the revision petition with observation that parties could contest their case before Supreme Court. Khalid Masood Rana for Petitioners. Raja Sajjad Haider for Respondents.

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 14-5-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal of the present respondents was accepted. 2. Arguments heard and record perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Abdul Hameed etc. were owners of land, who sold it to Abdul Aziz etc. through registered sale-deed No.165/1, dated 30-9-1955. Thereafter, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners purchased the same through sale-deed No.387, dated 5-12-1959. Father of the petitioners was illiterate person and could not get implement the sale-deeds in the revenue record. Possession was handed over to the petitioners, but mutation was not sanctioned. However, mutations Nos.5212 to 5215, were entered in the register on 5-5-2003, but those could not be sanctioned in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners and the Revenue Officer Halqa cancelled the same vide order dated 26-8-2011 without notice to the petitioners. Then the petitioners filed an appeal before learned Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran, which was accepted vide order dated 16-2-2012 and the Revenue Officer Halqa was directed to sanction the said mutations in compliance with the order dated 5-12-1959 passed by the District Collector. The respondent assailed that order before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, through appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 14-5-2012. The impugned order is clearly against the law and facts, of the case. The report of the patwari halqa is in favour of the petitioners. But learned Additional Commissioner passed the impugned order without consultation of the record. Undue haste has been shown by the learned lower court while passing the impugned order. The documentary material/evidence produced by the petitioners was ignored by the learned lower court. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that during proceedings of the appeal of the petitioners in the court of learned Assistant Commissioner, the respondents submitted application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., which was rejected without any lawful justification. Learned Assistant Commissioner, Lodhran vide order dated 16-2-2012 relying upon a fake order of learned District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, dated 5-5-2003 cancelled the order of the Tehsildar and directed the Revenue Officer to attest the mutation Nos.5212 to 5215 afresh. Then, the respondents filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which was rightly accepted on 14-5-2012. Sardar Muhammad was owner of land since 1955/56, from whom the respondents purchased 2-kanals, 3-marlas of land through registered sale-deeds Nos.922/1, dated 16-11-1999, No.693/1, dated 9-7-2004, No.681/1, dated 17-5-2005, 557/1, dated 17-4-2006. The respondents got registered sale-deeds through mutation Nos.4395, dated 27-11-1999, 5771, dated 20-5-2005, No.5547, dated 31-7-2004 and No.5979, dated 18-4-2006. The petitioner had shown purchase of land in the khewat through fake registered deeds. Thereafter, the petitioner also managed to prepare a self-made order of learned District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran, through which the patwari halqa was ordered to implement the sale deeds of the petitioners in the revenue record. Consequently, the revenue field staff made entries of mutation Nos.5212 to 5215, but the Tehsildar, Lodhran did not attest these mutations and made report at site that these mutations were not recorded according to the record and were against the procedure laid down in section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. As the petitioners were not owners of the land in the said khewat, therefore, the said mutations were rightly cancelled. The petitioners have no possession over the land in question. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the impugned orders. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that mutations Nos.5212 to 5215 were entered through wasiqa No.165, dated 30-9-1955, wasiqa No.387, dated 5-12-1959. The said mutations were not sanctioned by the Revenue Officer Halqa vide order dated 26-8-2011. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners filed an appeal in the court of learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Lodhran, which was accepted and application of present respondents for impleading them as party was rejected vide order dated 16-2-2012, vide order dated 16-2-2012 and the Revenue Officer Halqa was directed to sanction the mutations afresh. The operative part is as under:--- 6. This order was challenged by the present respondents in the court of learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, which was accepted vide order dated 14-5-2012. The operative part of the order is as under:--- "Arguments heard in detail. Record was perused. The copy of the order dated 18-8-2012 of District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran produced by the appellants shows that the then District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran had not passed any order to the field staff to attest mutations in favour of the respondents. The respondent on the basis of the fake orders of District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran succeeded to obtain impugned order from lower court. In this way, the respondent did come with clean hands and the impugned order which has been passed on the basis of fake orders of District Officer (Revenue), Lodhran has no legs to stand upon. In view of the aforementioned reason, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 16-2-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Lodhran." 7. The crux of the issue is that the present petitioners are claiming the impugned land on the basis of registered sale-deed No.387, dated 5-12-1959 and praying that mutation to this affect may be sanctioned. Whereas, the present respondents are claiming the same property on the basis of registered sale-deeds Nos.922/1, dated 16-11-1999, No.693/1, dated 9-7-2004, No.681/1, dated 17-5-2005, 557/1, dated 17-4-2006 and also have mutation sanctioned in their favour vide No.4395, dated 27-11-1999, 5771, dated 20-5-2005, No.5547, dated 31-7-2004 and No.5979, dated 18-4-2006. In another litigation pertaining to the same impugned property and between the same parties regarding ejectment, the matter went up to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the form of Civil Petitions Nos.2985-L to 2987-L, of 2003, in which both the present parties are parties and the same has been disposed of vide order dated 12-2-2004. The relevant para is as under:--- In view of above statement / arrangement between the parties petitions are disposed of in the following terms. (i) The petitioners shall handover peaceful vacant possession of the premises within a period of four months from today i.e. on or before 12th June, 2004 to respondent/landlord positively failing which warrants of ejectment shall be issued against them by the Rent Controller without notice and with police aid. (ii) Petitioners shall be bound to deposit monthly rent of each premises in their possession @ Rs.300 per month with the Rent Controller on or before 10th of every succeeding month, failing which they shall be liable to be ejected from the premises forthwith. 8. On the basis of such judgment, the respondent"s point of view is that in either case, the present respondents have been declared as owners of the impugned land by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan rendering petitioner"s contention that the matter pertains to ejectment proceedings and not of title, meaningless. It also appeared during proceedings that the present petitioners have gone into review against the above mentioned order, which is pending adjudication before august Supreme Court of Pakistan. 9. In the backdrop of the above, where even the matter of title of impugned property has been settled while deciding the issue of ejectment, which was between the same parties and about the same impugned land and the respondents have been declared as owners of the land by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Aggrieved from the said order, the present petitioners have also filed review before august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is pending adjudication. Hence, the revision petition is disposed of with the observation that parties may contest their case before Supreme Court of Pakistan. HBT/22/Rev. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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