Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 175 of 1961‑62, decided on 20th February 1962, District Rawalpindi.

--Revision‑Competent only when conditions laid down in S. 115, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) are present.

‑Proceedings summary‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in Civil Court.

The facts of this revision petition briefly are as follows: ‑

In 1933 Khuda Dad petitioner sold his land comprised in Khasra No. 438 situated in village Morgah, district Rawalpindi to Salim respondent, and a mutation was accordingly sanctioned on 29‑3‑1933. Somehow or the other this mutation was not brought on the revenue record, though Salim was continuously shown in the khasra girdawari in cultivating possession of this field. The mistake was discovered almost after a period of 30 years in 1960 when Salim applied to the Revenue Officer for a correction of entries in the revenue record. A mutation was entered but it was rejected and Salim was advised to go to the Civil Court. The Collector reversed the order in appeal and directed that Salim should be recorded as owner of the field in dispute. Meanwhile Khuda Dad had disposed of the field in favour of Lal Hussain, petitioner No. 2 and a mutation to that effect (No. 203) was decided on 28‑12‑1960. The Collector while accepting the appeal also permitted review of this mutation. The learned Additional Commissioner upheld the decision of the Collector and Khuda Dad and Lal Hussain have now come up in revision.

The main point taken up in this petition is one of fact. It is alleged that the field actually sold by Khuda Dad to Salim was Khasra No. 437 and not 438. The area of this field i.e., 437 is only 2 kanals as compared to an area of 8 kanals, 6 marlas of field No. 438. This is a question of fact and should really have been agitated in first appeal and not in revision. The established practice of the Financial Commissioners and the Members of the Board of Revenue has been to restrict interference in revision to cases which would fall within the provisions of section 115, C. P. C. though as a matter of fact the statute gives much wider powers. In any case mutation proceedings are only summary in character and a decision one way or the other merely shifts the burden of proof so that it is always open to an aggrieved party to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. I would, however, decline to interfere in revision on a question of fact and dismiss the petition in limine for the reasons given above. The petitioners should be informed.

K. M. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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