PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 28
Present: Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J.
MUHAMMAD JAVED (deceased) through LRs.--Petitioners
versus
Mst. SULTANA SHAHZADI, etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 127643 of 2017, decided on 8.3.2022.
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)--
----Ss. 161 to 166, 172--Modification in mutations--Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities--Presumption of truth and correctness--Wrongly entered sale-deed in mutation by patwari--No limitation--Right to correct record--Appeal during pendency of civil suit for review of mutations by Respondents No. 1 to 6--Accepted--Revision petition--Accepted--Findings of AC were reversed--Validity--Challenge to--Presumption of truth and correctness is attached to registered Sale-Deeds--The Revenue Authorities are bound to incorporate said registered Sale-Deeds in revenue records through mutations by keeping in view contents of documents--The Revenue Officer have no authority to interpretate registered documents with their self assumption and their own whims while incorporating and sanctioning mutations--They are duty bound to enter and sanction mutations in light of registered deed without any alteration--Patwari wrongly entered said Sale-Deeds in mutations which was subsequently illegally attested by Revenue Officer without adverting to original transactions which were embodied in registered Sale-Deeds--As these mutations were illegal and void and Respondents No. 1 to 06 Were in possession according to their entitlement as described in registered Sale-Deeds, no limitation runs against said illegal and void orders--Revenue Authorities, being custodian of record have every right to correct record and Respondent No. 11 rightly passed impugned order Revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to correct entries in record of rights, periodical record or register of mutation which were wrongly incorporated and jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in this regard--Petition dismissed. [Para 6] A, B, C & D
PLD 2018 SC 828, 2013 SCMR 906, 1995 SCMR 284, 2010 SCMR 1915, 2020 CLC 792, 2015 YLR 750, 2012 CLC 1023,
PLD 1991 Lahore 314 ref.
M/s. Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Ch. M. Zeeshan Munawar Khan & Ch. Jameel Asif, Advocates for Petitioners.
Ch. Tauqeer Ahmad Hanjra, Advocate for Respondents
No. 1-6.
Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocate for Respondents No. 7-B to 7-E.
Date of hearing: 25.2.2022.
Judgment.
Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners have called in question the validity & legality of judgment/order dated 09.08.2017 passed by Respondent No. 10 [Member Board of Revenue (J-VIII)] and the corrigendum dated 08.12.2017 whereby while allowing the appeal of the Respondents No. 1 to 06 order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) was set aside and order dated 27.01.2015 passed by Respondent No. 11 (Assistant Commissioner, City Lahore) was restored through which the appeal of Respondent No. 1 to 06 was accepted and Revenue Officer Halqa was directed to modify mutations No. 2090 and 3081 as per respective registered deeds to the extent of 7.5 Marlas each and note given by Patwari Halqa also be cancelled and Mutation No. 3373 be reviewed sanctioned to the extent of ownership left by Mst. Wazir Begum.
2. Tersely, the facts as divulged in this petition are that Mst. Wazir Begum d/o Muhammad Hayat (wife of Abdul Majeed), Predecessor in interest of the petitioners and Respondents No. 1 to 07 was exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 19 Marlas falling in Khasra No. 346 situated within the revenue estate of Mouza Jia Moosa, Usman Park, Shahdra Mor, Lahore (Previously part of District Sheikhupura) on the basis of inheritance and partition proceedings concluded before august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The said Wazir Begum transferred land measuring 07.5 Marlas in favour of Muhammad Munir (predecessor of Respondents No. 7A to 7E) vide Sale-Deed bearing No. 39534 registered with Sub-Registrar concerned on 21.12.1976 which was incorporated in the revenue record through Mutation No. 3081 sanctioned on 09.03.1983. Likewise, Wazir Begum also alienated land measuring 7.5 Marlas in favour of late Muhammad Bashir (predecessor of Respondents No. 1 to 6) through registered Sale-Deed bearing No. 39535, registered with Sub-Registrar concerned on 21.12.1976 and the same was incorporated in the revenue record vide Mutation No. 2595 dated 24.02.1981. The said lady instead of transferring her remaining entitlement, transferred land measuring 07 Marlas was transferred in the name of Muhammad Javed (predecessor of Petitioners No. 1 to 08) through registered sale-deed bearing document No. 3482 dated 18.03.1982 which was incorporated in the revenue record through Mutation No. 3373 dated 26.12.1983. Initially, the legal heirs of Muhammad Bashir were in possession of excess land measuring 03 marla and they refused to return the same, as a result of which Muhammad Javed, predecessor in interest of the petitioners instituted civil suit seeking declaration, possession and manse profit with permanent injunction in Civil Court, Lahore. During the pendency of the said suit, the Respondents No. 1 to 06 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner on 23.12.2014 seeking review of mutations No. 2595, 3081 & 3073 attested on 24.02.1981, 09.03.1983 & 26.12.1983 respectively which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 27.01.2015, against which the petitioners filed revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore, who accepted the same vide order dated 07.04.2016 and reversed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner by setting aside order dated 27.01.2015 and directing both the parties to knock the door of Civil Court to seek remedy that has competent jurisdiction in such like matters. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the Respondents No. 1 to 06 filed Revision of Revision (ROR No. 906/2016) before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The Member, Board of Revenue [Judicial-VIII] accepted the revision petition vide order dated 09.08.2017 which was corrected later on through corrigendum dated 08.12.2017, which subsequently assailed by the petitioners by filing review petition which they opted to withdraw on 26.12.2017 with the view to approach this Court, hence, this writ petition.
3. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners can be sum-up in the words that since Wazir Begum alienated 19 marla of land in favour of three persons, she did not sell land beyond her holding; that as the matter of fact the suit property have being part of District Sheikhupura, the measuring per marla was equal to 272 square feet whereas the marla falls in Lahore District was equal to 225 square feet, thus the observation of the Member Board of revenue are against the record; that the predecessor in interest of Respondents No. 1 to 06 who was an Advocate by profession, remained alive till 1992 but non-challenging the mutations by the said person to the transaction made by Wazir Begum in favour of various persons stands proof of the fact that the same were executed within her own holdings; that according to the revenue record one marla is equal to 272 square feet in Sheikhupura whereas the position governed in Lahore according to marla having 225 square feet, thereof, the Member Board of Revenue mis-directed himself while passing the impugned order; that order dated 08.12.2017 speaks malafide conducted by the Member Board of Revenue; that while passing the impugned order the Member Board of Revenue failed to consider that old entries in the revenue record cannot be changed by the revenue authorities rather the proper forum is the Civil Court; that during the proceedings regarding partition between Wazir Begum and her brothers which went up to the Hon’ble supreme Court it was established that Muhammad Munir, Muhammad Bashir were given 15 Marla whereas Muhammad Javed, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was given 07 Marlas land; that even during proceeding enunciated from an ejectment petition which was finally decided by this Court through order passed in Writ Petition No. 2259/1992 the ownership of Muhammad Javed, predecessor in interest of petitioner is established as 07 Marla. To fortify his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case laws “Abdul Haq and another versus Mst. Surrya Begum and others” (2002 SCMR 1330), “Nasrullah Khan and 4 others versus Nazir Begum and others” (2012 YLR 2613), “Saleh Muhammad and 4 others versus Baz Muhammad and 2 others” (2012 MLD 1907), Begum Syeda Azra Masood versus Begum Noshaba Moeen and others” (2007 SCMR 914)” Fida Hussain and others versus Abdul Aziz” (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 343), “Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs and others versus Mst. Fazal Bibi and others” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 872), “Mazloom Hussain versus Abid Hussain and 4 others” (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 571), “Lal Khan through Legla Heirs versus Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs” (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 657) and “Noor Salam and others versus Gul Badshah and others” (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 622).
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while defending the impugned order passed by the Member Board of Revenue submits that according to Section 161 to Section 166 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, the revenue authority enjoying exclusive jurisdiction to correct mistakes/default; that when Wazir Begum had already alienated 15 marla land in favour of Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Bashir, she could not alienate more land than that of her remaining land i.e. 04 marla, hence, no adverse opinion can be found against the impugned order, that the Assistant Commissioner while coming to know that havoc was played by the revenue field staff, he rightly exercised his power of appeal; that admittedly respondents are enjoying possession of the disputed land since their ancestor which cannot be decided on the basis of summery proceedings of mutation; that admittedly the civil suit filed by Muhammad Javed, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was pending before the civil Court, hence, his writ petition was not maintainable. Relies on” Trading Corporation of Pakistan versus Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others” (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), “Dildar Ahmad and others versus Member (Judicial-III) Bor, Punjab, Lahore and another” (2013 SCMR 906), “Wali and 10 others versus Akbar and 5 others” (1995 SCMR 284), “Abdul Rashid versus Muhammad Yaseen and another” (2010 SCMR 1871), Muhammad Bashir and others versus Mst. Latifa Bibi through LRs., (2010 SCMR 1915), “Ameer Abbas Sial versus Provice of Punjab” (2020 CLC 792), Muhammad Azam Khan and 17 others versus Muhammad Sarwar and 21 others” (2015 YLR 750), “Muhammad Aslam versus Sana Ullah through Legal Heirs” (2012 CLC 1023) and “Dilmir and others versus Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others” (PLD 1991 Lahore 314).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the documents available on the file as well as the case law cited at bar.
6. Admittedly, Mst. Wazir Begum (predecessor of the parties) was owner of land measuring 19 Marlas which she inherited from her father. It is also matter of record that through registered Sale-Deed No. 39534 dated 21.12.1976 she transferred land measuring 7.5 Marlas in favour of Respondent No. 7 namely Muhammad Munir Ahmad and through registered Sale-Deed No. 39535 dated 21.12.1976, she alienated land measuring 7.5 Marlas to predecessor of Respondents No. 1 to 06 namely Muhammad Bashir. In this way, she sold land measuring 15 Marlas out of 19 Malras and remained owner only to the extent of 04 Marlas. From perusal of said Sale-Deeds it Reveals that mode of measurement i.e. 272 square feet or 225 square Feet, is not described. Presumption of truth and correctness is Attached to the registered Sale-Deeds. The Revenue Authorities are bound to incorporate the said registered Sale-Deeds in the revenue records through mutations by keeping in view the contents of said documents. The Revenue Officer/Patwari have no authority to interpretate the registered documents with their self assumption and their own whims while incorporating and sanctioning the mutations. They are duty bound to enter and sanction the mutations in the light of registered deed without any alteration. Registered Sale-Deed No. 39535 dated 21.12.1976 was incorporated in the revenue record through Mutation No. 2595 which was entered and attested on 24.02.1981 after lapse of five years and registered Sale-Deed No. 39534 dated 21.12.1976 was entered through Mutation No. 3081 which was sanctioned on 09.01.1983 after seven years of registration. Patwari wrongly entered the said Sale-Deeds in the mutations which was subsequently illegally attested by the Revenue Officer without adverting to the original transactions which were embodied in the registered Sale-Deeds. Mst. Wazir Begum was not owner of land measuring 07 Marlas at the time of registered Sale-Deed No. 3482 dated 18.03.1982. It is apparent on the record that mutations No. 2595 & 3081 were wrongly sanctioned contrary to the registered Sale-Deeds. When the measurement as per “Jareeb” or 272 square feet or 225 square feet in one Marla was not mentioned in the registered Sale-Deeds of Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Munir, then how the Revenue Patwari while entering mutations No. 2595 and 3081 mentioned the measurement
جریب 6 مرلہ پیمائش فیتہ 7.5 مرلہ. As these mutations were illegal and void and Respondents No. 1 to 06 were in possession according to their entitlement as described in the registered Sale-Deeds, therefore, no limitation runs against said illegal and void orders. Mst. Wazir Begum wrongly transferred 07 Marla land in favour of predecessor of the petitioners, namely, Muhammad Javed as she was only remained owner of 04 Marlas and at the most, Could transfer her remaining land in favour of predecessor of the petitioner namely Muhammad Javed but predecessor of the petitioner succeeded to get transfer 07 Marlas in the light of wrong entries made by the Patwari in mutations No. 2595 & 3081 and sanctioned by the revenue officer. Revenue Authorities, being custodian of the record have every right to correct the record and Respondent No. 11 rightly passed the impugned order dated 27.01.2015. U/S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, Revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to correct the entries in record of rights, periodical record or register of mutation which were wrongly incorporated and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any illegality, irregularity and mis-reading and non-reading of record and jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders.
7. Upshot of above discussion is that there is no force in the instant writ petition. Hence, dismissed being devoid of merits/ substance.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed
0 Comments