Find a Lawyer

Case No. 420/946 of 1980.

‑‑ R. 6‑Dismissal from service‑Patwari charged with misconduct -Enquiry Officer who found him guilty not well‑versed with Revenue Procedures and Rules and basing findings on misreading of evidence as also against settled principles of law‑Order of dismissal set aside and Patwari re‑instated with back benefits.

M. A. Riaz for Appellant.

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Munshi Ilam Din ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded A.C., Kasur and Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 11th May, 1980 passed by learned A. C. Kasur and dated 3ist May. 1980 by the learned Commissioner respectively, be set aside and appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was issued a show‑cause notice on 28th June 1979, Annexure A' and later on was charge‑sheeted on 3ist July 1979 alongwth statement of allegations. The appellant submitted his reply dated 22nd August, 1979 in which he denied all the charges. Mr. Muhammad Akram Cheema. Magistrate 1st Class, was appointed Enquiry Officer vide order, dated 2nd October, 1979. The said Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charges so levelled against him and submitted his case to the competent authority, who dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 11th May, 1980. An appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner also failed. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. We have also recorded the statement of Naib‑Tehsildar Mr. Akbar Ali as C. W. I. to clear certain matter in connection with this case and has placed his statement on record. Before we enter into merits of this case, it would be useful to reproduce the charges levelled against the appellant as the analysis of the same will prove innocence on guilt of the appellant :‑

(i) That he has been working as Patwari, Circle Patohi Wala from 26th May, 1973 to 3ist January, 1977. During the tenure of his posting at the said circle, he issued copy of revenue record in violation of para. 16(3) of the Land Records Manual in respect of land owned by the Railway Department. On the basis of said copy, a sale‑deed was registered in the office of sub‑Registrar, Kasur at Serial No. 3543, dated 2ist November, 1975.

(ii) That he failed to record a report in roznomcha waqiati in respect of Mutation No. 148 as required vide para. 81(3) of the Land Record Manual.

(iii) That he failed to give a note on the mutation to the effect that the land being sold through the said mutation was owned by the Railway Department and thus violated sub‑para. (3) of para. 6 of the Land Records Manual.

4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments made on behalf of the appellant and so controverted by learned District Attorney with the assistance of Naib‑Tehsildar who appeared before this Court as C. W. 1. and find that registered Sale‑Deed, dated 2ist November, 1975 Annexure H' and Form R. C. II Annexure 'J' and Mutation No. 148, dated 27th October, 1976 relate to the entire story so completely that nothing else is needed to unshroud the complication of this case, which emanated from the report of the Enquiry Officer, who, we are constrained to observe was not well versed with Revenue Procedure and Rules, as being mainly a Judicial Officer.

5. The record Annexure 11 will show that this Deed was executed not on the strength of Fard issued by the appellant but on the strength of Form R. L. II Annexure J' which was in the sale possession of the allottee. Appellant had nothing to do with that piece of land as land owned by Central Government, was allotted by Border Committee as back as year 1961. If the Enquiry Officer knew something regarding this procedure, he would have summoned the actual copy of R. L. II which was presented before the Sub‑Registrar alongwith the sale‑deed and would have at once known that the same was issued by the Copying, Branch of the D. C.'s Office. This matter stands completely resolved by the Registered Deed itself which states that the Deed was executed on the basis of R. L. II and not Fard issued by the appellant.

6. With this state of affairs the charge No. 1 stands completely demolished and this is the most serious charge against the appellant. What Munshi Ilam Din has done is that he has entered Mutation No. 148 on the strength of said Registered Deed, a mention of the same finds place under Column 12 of the said mutation. The Revenue Officer has attested the same and Girdawar has confirmed its correctness. There is clear mention of this fact in Column No. 4 of the said mutation. Of course the note in red ink is redundant, but this note in no way affects the validity of the registered deed or confer any further sanctity upon it, as it is sacrosanct in its own right in view of law laid down much before creation of Pakistan.

7. With regard to recording of note in the roznamcha waqiati, the rest of the charges have no fence at all, if we look into the things from its true prospective. It is settled law that a Registered Deed must be given effect by the Revenue Officer unless and until it has been held by a civil Court that the same was not worth the paper on which it was written. This was held by Sir James Anderson in Balaqi Shah v. Mumtaz Daultana and this authority is last word on the subject as the same has stood the test of time, and on other controversy has come into field. The same can be termed an omission and nothing else, as the existence or non‑existence of such entry would have hardly affected the validity of said Registered Deed in favour o1 Muhammad Sharif (Mashtri) from Muhammad Sami (Bae) of course omission to mention executed of oral transaction between the parties would have materially affected its sanctity. Therefore, I hold that such like omission would hardly call for any action under E & D Rules.

8. While adverting to the third charge we will refer to our observation in the earlier part of judgment and will conclude that in view of sanctity of the Registered Deed this charge ‑will place into insignificance. C. W. 1 Abbas Ali has been labouring to convince this Court that the appellant was guilty of lapses which were serious in nature. We ate hardly impressed by his statement which avoid the basic issue of this case.

9. All the trouble has started from the report of the Enquiry Officer who could not grapple with the moot problem. If be had applied his mind to the contents of R. L. II Registered Deed, by supplementing with the law laid down with regard to the sanctity of Registered Deed he would not have found the appellant guilty. He also failed to take note of another important document that is Annexure K' on the record. Annexure K' would reveal that when somebody made a complaint before Mr. Hafeez Akhtar D. C1 Kasnr/Collector that Mutation No. 148 had perpetuated a forgery, the reed D. C. refused to interfere with the same and refused to struck down the said Mutation No. 148 (now subject of discussion in this case) as it had been sanctioned on the strength of Registered Deed. How could Ilam Din appellant arrogate himself with the powers which were not vested in a Deputy Commissioner even with a Member, Board of Revenue which is the highest authority in Revenue matters.

10. In view of the above we proceed to set aside both the impugned orders as arriving out of misreading of evidence, as well as against the settled principles of law laid down and direct that the appellant be re‑instated in service with all back benefits.

M. I. Appeal 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.