Find a Lawyer

R.O.R. No. 1130 of 2005, decided on 18th December, 2006.

----Ss. 44 & 164---Review of mutation---Application for---District Officer (Revenue) cancelled the order of his predecessor, whereby he had given permission to review the mutation---Petitioners filed an appeal before the Executive Officer (Revenue), who, vide his order, dismissed the appeal---Validity---Counsel for the petitioners had failed to prove any irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue)---Petitioners were not party before the District Officer (Revenue)---Held, proper forum for the petitioners was the civil court where evidence would be recorded to arrive at the right conclusion. Ms. Sumaira Afzal for Petitioners. Muhammad Irshad Ch. for Respondents.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, dated 10-2-2005, whereby he set aside the order of the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, dated 16-4-2004. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Syed Ghulam Abbas etc., filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, to review the Mutation Nos. 4301, 4952, 4335, 4965, 4981 and 5365, who vide his order, dated 16-4-2004 accorded permission to review these mutations. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi. Bahauddin, who vide his order, dated 27-3-2002 remanded the case to the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, to hear both the parties and then decide it. After hearing both the parties, the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, cancelled the order of his predecessor on 16-4-2004, which he gave permission to review the above mentioned mutations. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, who vide his order, dated 10-2-2005 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bhahauddin, dated 16-4-2004. Hence this revision petition. 3. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order, dated 10-2-2005 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, was against the facts and nullity in eye of law. He contended that the petitioners were necessary parties being bona fide purchasers and they were not impleaded as party before the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bhahuddin. The order passed by the District Officer (Revenue), in the absence of the petitioners. He prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and set aside both the orders, dated 16-4-2004, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, and the impugned order, dated 10-2-2005. 4. The counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents were not parties before the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin, and there is no locus standi. He argued that the Civil Court passed a decree on 4-9-1972 in favour of the respondents and the Revenue authorities were duty bound to give effect to decrees of the Courts in revenue record and to make entries in accordance with those decrees. He further argued that the said decree was not challenged in any Court up till now. He argued that on remand the District Office (Revenue), has rightly passed the order, dated 16-2-2004 and the Executive Officer (Revenue), also upheld the order, dated 16-2-2004. He prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed and the impugned order, dated 10-2-2005 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), may be upheld. 5. Arguments heard. Recorded perused. The counsel for the petitioner failed to prove any irregularity or infirmity in the order, dated 10-2-2005 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioners were not party before the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin. The proper forum for the petitioners is the Civil Court where evidence will be recorded to arrive at the right conclusion. 6. In view of the above facts, the revision petition is dismissed having no force. H.B.T./12/Rev. Revision 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.