Find a Lawyer

Case No. 577 of 1981, decided on 5th July, 1982.

‑‑ R. 6 (3)‑Show‑cause notice‑Patwari manoeuvring to enter un authorised and false mutation knowingly that such mutation had earlier been rejected by Revenue Officer‑‑Such move against record and malacious for ulterior motive ‑ Show‑cause notice served‑‑ Defence plea fully attended to‑Penalty of dismissal imposed‑ Order based on cogent and detailed reasons‑Interference, in cir cumstances, refused by Service Tribunal‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑ Muhammad Tahir, ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Sadar Sub‑Division, Gujranwala, Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Member, Board of Revenue Punjab as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that impugned order dated 30‑8‑1980 by Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sadar, Sub‑Division, Gujranwala dismissing him from service and order dated 5‑10‑1981 whereby his revision petition was also dismissed by Member, Board of Revenue be set aside and be may be re‑instated in service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Arshad Khan Patwari Circle Daullay sent a report duly endorsed by the Field Kanungo, and Tehsildar, Gujranwala to the effect that Khasra No. 312 of village Daullay comprised of 18 Kanals 16 Marlas out of which 15 Khanal was allotted to Rehmat Ali son of Azmat Ali who sold the entire land to one Amir Din etc, The said Rehmat Ali also sold 3 Kanals 16 Marlas of this land to Mst. Surrya Begum, daughter of Fazal Elahi, caste Arain. This transac tion could not take place because the land was not owned by him. How ever both these transactions took place through registered deeds. The Revenue Officer attested mutation in favour of Amir‑ud‑Din for 15 Kanals. However, Mutation No. 11015 for 3 Kanals 16 Marlas was rejected by the Revenue Officer, vide order dated 4‑12‑1978 as this particular land has never been allotted to Rehmat Ali as the same had already been transferred in the name of Central Government vide Fard Badar No. 53 sanctioned on 11‑8‑1977. The amaldaramd of this Fard Badar had been incor porated in the Register Haqdaran Zamin, in the remarks column. Muhammad Tahir Patwari who remained posted in Circle Dhullay, entered another Mutation No. 12939 of the same land for which Mutation No. 11015 had already been rejected by the Revenue Officer. Shah Nawaz Field Kanungo compared this Mutation on 7‑9‑1979 and Mr. M. A. Niazi the then Tehsildar Gujranwala, sanctioned the same. When this matter was brought in the notice of the Deputy Commissioner Collector he placed Muhammad Tahir Patwari, under suspension and a show‑cause notice was issued as provided under rule 6 (3l of the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules of 1975 and he was directed to appear on 1‑7‑1980 and give his reply. The appellant appeared and submitted his reply to the show‑cause notice. He was also heard personally. The learned Assistant Commissioner even though the entire history of the case and gave his full attention to all the pleas advanced by the appellant he found him guilty and dismissed him from service. His appeal before the learned Commissioner also failed, he went in revision before the learned Member Board of Revenue but that too met the same fate who vide his order 5‑10‑1981 rejected the same.

4. The case is still as on the preliminary hearing but the parawise comments have been received and have been perused in existenso. We have also carefully gone through the orders of learned A.C., learned Commis sioner and of the learned M.B.R. The fact of the matter is that the appellant was fully aware and it was in his notice that the earlier mutation had been rejected by the Revenue Officer, but he again manoeuvred to enter the mutation of the same, therefore, he is responsible for a false move which was against the record as well the malicious for ulterior motives.

5. We are of the considered opinion that the three impugned orders which have fully attended to all the facts of the case as well as plea of the appellant are based on cogent reasons, and detailed in nature. We do not find any justification to interfere with these well‑considered decisions. The result is that we dismiss the appeal.

There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal 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.