Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.2505 of 1984, decided on 11th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 42‑‑Mutation, sanction of‑‑Mutation based on consent decree of Court in favour of petitioner sanctioned by Revenue Officer was set aside by Appellate Revenue Court on ground that limitation for its execution had expired‑‑Compromise having been entered between parties, mutation was ordered to be sanctioned in favour of petitioner in accordance with decree of civil Court.

Ch. Rehmat Ali for Petitioner.

Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

The petitioner filed a suit on 3‑4‑1974 claiming that he was the owner of the land measuring 69 Kanals 1 Marla as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1970‑71 and owner of house measuring 1 Kanal consisting of two rooms and a courtyard, both situated in village Baqarpur, Tehsil and District Sialkot. With the consent of the defendant, Jalal Din his own father, the suit was decreed on 22‑4‑1974. On the demise of Jalal Din in July 1982 mutation of inheritance No.44 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner his sister respondent No.5 and mother respondent No.6 as heirs of Jalal Din, on 6‑9‑1982. On petitioner's appeal, in view of the aforementioned decree, the A.C./Collector, Sialkot directed that the mutation of the entire holding to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 23‑4‑1983. However, on the second appeal of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 the Additional Commissioner, Gujranwala set aside the order appealed against on the ground that the civil Courts decree awarded in 1974 could not have been executed after the period of limitation of six years. This is vide order, dated 6‑3‑1974. Petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue vide order dated 25‑4‑1986. Hence the aforetitled Constitutional petition.

2. The petitioner has filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 1349 of 198Q saying that the petitioner has entered into a compromise with his sister Mst. Sakina Bibi, respondent No.5 who has surrendered her right and accepted the decree passed by ‑the learned civil Court. It was prayed that the writ petition may be accepted to the extent of share of Mst. Sakina Bibi, respondent No.5. It is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner and the compromise deed is signed by the petitioner, Mst, Sakina Bibi, respondent No. 5 and her husband Feroze Din. Haj; Muhammad Sadiq has attested the compromise deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Haji Muhammad Sadiq is a respectabe of the village and has been made a witness. So also Ch. Jalal Din These gentlemen are present in Court and have stated that the parties have entered into a compromise. Today, respondent No.6 Mst. Hassan Bibi mother of the petitioner, is also present and it is being stated by her and her learned counsel as well as other persons mentioned above that she, too has agreed to surrender her right under the impugned orders in favour of her son, the petitioner and that the entire estate may vest in him as decreed to by the civil Court in 1974. Copies of the identity cards of respondent No.5, her husband and Haji Muhammad Sadiq are placed on the record. So also the photographs of respondents Nos.5 and 6. Parties, of course, recognise each other and Haji Muhammad Sadiq, Ch. Jalal Din and Feroze Din husband of respondent No.5 and son‑in‑law of respondent No.6, identify the parties. So, do the learned counsel their clients.

3. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties it is directed that the mutation shall be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the decree of the civil Court dated 22‑4‑1974. The petition is accordingly, disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H. B. T. 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.