2015 M L D 703
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
----Ss. 39, 44, 163, 164 & 172(2)(vi)---Record of rights---Correction of any entry in record of right---Petitioners claimed that their father purchased land in question through registered sale deed-dated 20-10-1959, and mutation was sanctioned; that said property was obtained on rent in the year 1965, but through mutation dated 23-9-1984 same was transferred to the Government as State land, illegally---Petitioners, contended that their property be restored in their names---District Officer (Revenue) allowed review petition of the petitioners and restored land to the petitioners---Government, filed appeal before Commissioner which was accepted---Validity---Petitioners claimed ownership of impugned land on the basis of purchase of said land by their predecessor-in-interest---Record had shown that vendee of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not the owner of the land, he, therefore, could not sell the ownership rights---Purchases of such land could not be in a better position than the seller---Order passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was lawful and warranted no interference---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 YLR 403 rel.
Rana Muhammad Nazir Khan for Petitioners.
Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM VS State
2015 M L D 703
[Board of Revenue Punjab]
Before Waheed Akhtar Ansari, Member (Judicial-III)
Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM and others---Petitioners
versus
The STATE---Respondent
ROR No.2788 of 2012, decided on 23/10/2014.
ORDER
WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).---This revision petition has been filed against order dated 12-11-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, whereby appeal filed by Govt. Al-Hussain Islamia Secondary School, Muzafar Abad, Tehsil City, District Multan was accepted.
2.Arguments heard and record perused.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that father of the petitioners purchased 5-kanals of land comprising khasra No.28/19/1, situated in Mauza Jhakar Pur, Tehsil and District Multan through registered sale deed No.481/1, dated 20-10-1959 and Mutation No.574 was sanctioned. Upon this land, 6 rooms and 3 chappars were constructed. Later on, this property was obtained on rent in year 1965. However, through Mutation No.1554, dated 23-9-1984, the state land was transferred in the name of respondents illegally. In the year 1972, Al-Hussain Secondary School was nationalized and according to the instructions contained in clauses 9 and 10 of the MLR 118, Government of the Punjab, Education Department was responsible to honour contracts and agreements made by the owners or manager of any privately managed college or school. Thus, necessary information about the said school was asked by the Inspector of Schools from the headmaster through letter dated 28-3-1972. On 1-10-1972 a rent deed was executed between Ahmad Nawaz Khan and Govt. of the Punjab, Education Department. The rent was being assessed and paid with the increase of 25% after every three years. However, in year 1982, Govt. of the Punjab, Education Department issued a letter No.SO (R&B)4-21/81, dated 8-7-1992, which does not apply on the private rented buildings, which were being used as tenancy by the Education Department, But, the said letter was mis-interpreted, whereby mutation No.1554 was sanctioned on 23-9-1984, whereby the said property was transferred in favour of Education Department. Manzoor Ahmad Khan etc. after the death of their father approached to the Patwari Halqa for inheritance mutation, then they came to know about the said mutation. The petitioners submitted an application for the correction of record to learned District Officer (Revenue), who after obtaining report from the revenue field staff passed the order dated 19-2-2009 in accordance with law. The appellate court wrongly observed that learned District Collector had not jurisdiction to correct the wrong entries in the revenue record. According to section 44 read with section 163 as well as section 172(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, learned District Officer (Revenue) is fully competent to take cognizance of the matter. The impugned mutation was sanctioned by misinterpreting letter No.2607-83 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab. The order of learned Commissioner is against the law and facts of the case. The respondent kept on paying rent to the petitioner of the said property regularly which proves ownership of the petitioners. It is a well settled principle of law that limitation does not run against a void order. The observation of the learned Commissioner that the building of said School was not on rental basis, is incorrect. Similarly, the observation of learned Commissioner that the civil court decided the matter is also wrong for the reason that the petitioners never filed any civil suit. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4.I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Mansoor Ahmad Khan, holder of general power of attorney of legal heirs of Ahmad Nawaz Khan submitted an application to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of the Punjab on 5-7-2008 stating therein that Government Al-Hussain Islamia Secondary School, Muzaffar Abad, District Multan is established on their landed property and Education Department has been paying them its rent regularly till date. But, the Patwari Halqa transferred this land in the name of Education Department, Government of the Punjab, without orders from the competent authority. They, therefore, requested that their property may be restored in their names. Learned District Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 19-2-2009 allowed review of mutation No.1554, dated 20-9-1984. The operative part is as under:--
"I have heard one of the petitioners, representative of School and also perused the reports of field staff and written arguments of respondent. The Govt. nationalized all Schools/Colleges in the year 1972 and ordered that Schools/Colleges, their attached properties be transferred in favour of Education Department. But it was clarified vide letter No.SO(R&B)4-21/81 dated 8-7-1982 issued by Education Department, Govt. of the Punjab, that these instructions do not apply to private rented buildings which are being used as tenancies by the Education Department. The impugned land/building is used by Education Department as lessee and paying rent to the landowners regularly. It is clear that the land in question is owned by the petitioners and the respondent is its lessee. The impugned Mutation No.1554 dated 23-9-1984 has wrongly been attested by the field staff without any proof regarding change of ownership and against the instructions of the Govt., therefore, there was no reason to attest impugned mutation in favour of respondent.
In view of above, in exercise of power under section 163 of Land Revenue Act 1967 allow review of Mutation No.1554 dated 23-9-1984 and restore the previous entries in the revenue record. The Revenue Officer concerned is directed to proceed further as per law".
5.Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present respondent preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, which was accepted vide on dated 12-11-2012. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:--
"Arguments heard. Record perused. Perusal of the revenue record indicates that Ahmad Nawaz Khan, father of the respondents purchased land measuring Khasra No.28/19/1 measuring 5 Kanals from Allah Yar son of Allah Bakhsh, caste Maitla, while as per entries of Register Haqdaran Zamin for 1953-54 and 1959-60, Ghulam Rasool etc. have been entered as owners of the land-in-dispute in the column of ownership. The name of afore-stated Allah Yar has been entered in the column of cultivation as "Maurusi tenant". Therefore, Allah Bukhsh, being not owner of the land-in-question, was not authorized/ competent to sell the land-in-dispute further to Ahmad Nawaz Khan, father of the respondents. This places the alleged ownership of the respondents in question/doubt. Further, at the time of purchase of Khasra No.28/19/1, measuring 5 Kanals by Ahmad Nawaz Khan, father of the respondents, the same was located in the joint holding and specific Khasra number cannot be transferred to any person in the joint holding. As per demarcation of the Revenue Field Staff, Tehsildar and Assistant Commissioner (City), Multan, Government Al-Hussain Islamia Secondary School, Muzaffarabad, is established on Khasra No.28/19/1 and 28/12 and total area of the school is 6 Kanals, while the respondents claim to be owners of land measuring
5-Kanals. In addition to the school, paths and Abadi also exist in Khasra No.28/29/1. Furthermore, the land in dispute stands transferred in favour of Education Department, Government of Punjab, and is under occupation of Al-Hussain Islamia School, vide Mutation No.1554 dated 23-9-1984. The respondents remained silent for 24 years and thereafter submitting a review petition for correction of revenue record, which makes their intention doubtful. As per section 163(2)(b) of L.R.A., 1967, an application for review of an order shall not be entertained, unless the same is made within 90 days from passing of an order. Therefore, the same was not entertainable as per law. Such long standing entries should not have been changed by the then District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector, Multan, vide the impugned order as matters relating to long standing entries in the revenue record, is a matter of evidence for which proper forum is a civil court. According to section 53 of L.R.A., 1967, if any person considers himself aggrieved by any entry in a record of rights or in periodical record, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right under chapter-vi of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The respondents have therefore failed to prove their ownership in the civil court as the ejectment petition filed by Mst. Rashida Begum mother of the respondents was rejected by the court of Rent Controller, Multan, on 13-5-2010, and the appeal filed in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Multan, met the same fate on 13-5-2010.
In view of the afore-stated, I accept the appeal in best public interest and set aside the impugned order".
6.The basic issue is that petitioners are claiming ownership of the impugned land on the basis of purchase of the said land by Ahmed Nawaz Khan (his predecessor-in-interest). The perusal of relevant record showed that vendee of predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners was not the owner of impugned land and so cannot sale the ownership rights. Further, the purchaser cannot be better of than his seller. Reliance is placed upon 2012 YLR 403, which reads as under:--
"vendee were to survive or sink with vendor depending upon determination of legal status of the property transferred to the vendor because a transferee simply steps into the shoes of transferor so a defective title could not become a perfect title because it was further transferred".
The petitioners could not rebut this factual position. So, it is established that impugned order dated 12-11-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, is quite lawful and warrants no interference. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 12-11-2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, is upheld.
HBT/1/Rev.Petition dismissed.
0 Comments