Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 179 of 1958‑59, decided on 27th April 1959, District Lyallpur.

S. 20‑Mutation‑Hiba‑Mutation sanctioned on 17‑4‑1947 on basis of Hiba, when property had vested in Custodian‑Mutation order held without jurisdiction.

Concurrent findings of Collector and Commis sioner‑Absence of material irregularity‑No interference.

Abdus Samad Hashmi for Petitioner.

The facts of the case are given in the Collector's and the Additional Commissioner's orders and need not be repeated here in detail.

2. It was urged at the time of arguments that entries in the Jamabandi cannot be corrected by the Revenue Officers on the plea that they are fraudulent. The order of the Additional Commissioner shows that according to Khasra Girdawari from the year 1944‑48, Kartar Singh and Didar Singh were continuously in possession of the land in dispute. In the Girdawari carried on 7‑11‑1948, the land was shown in the possession of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and this entry was scored through. After this unauthorized scoring through, the name of Mubarak Ali was entered. The Authority under which this was done, has not been given: It is admitted that the mutation was attested on 17‑4‑1947. When the non‑Muslim evacuees were shown in possession right up to '1948, the attestation of tire mutation appears extraordinary. Moreover, according to section 7 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act of 1957, all property of evacuees vests in the Custodian from 1‑3‑1947. According to section 5 the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwith standing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 20 provides that no creation or transfer of any right or interest in or encumbrance upon any property made in any manner whatsoever on or after the 1st day of March, 1947, by or on behalf of an evacuee or on behalf of a person who has become an evacuee after the date of such creation or transfer, shall be effective so as to confer any right or remedy on any party thereto or on any person claiming under any such party, unless it is confirmed by the Custodian, If the petitioner claimed any right in the property, he could proceed under section 20 (2). That too has not been done. Under these circumstances, the implementation of mutation order dated 14‑4‑1947, is barred by the Act.

It would thus appear that there has been no material irregularity in the concurrent findings of the Collector and Additional Commissioner. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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