2010 PLP 2370 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 23-2-2009 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Bhalwal the father of the petitioners was owner of suit-land who died in the year, 1991 and the mutation of inheritance No.2124 dated 25-3-1981 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 9 and

10. In the year, 2005, respondent No.4 filed a review petition before the District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin who passed an ex parte order on 25-4-2007. The petitioners challenged this order in appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Mandi Bahauddin who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16-10-2008. The petitioners filed revision petition bearing ROR No. 214 of 2009 which also met the same fate and vide order dated 23-2-2009, learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dismissed the ROR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that at the time of death of Bahawal, the petitioners Muhammad Nazir, Muhammad Yasin and Mst. Sakina Bibi were the only surviving legal heirs of deceased Bahawal. Taj Bibi wife of Abdur Razzaq (respondent No.4) is not the legal heirs of deceased Bahawal but learned District Officer (Revenue) Board of Revenue, illegally and without cogent evidence declared Mst. Taj Bibi Mst. Irshad Bibi and Bashir Ahmad the legal heirs of deceased Bahawal. Learned counsel further contends that review petition was badly barred by time and the respondents failed to explain such long delay, still the revenue hierarchy allowed the review petition and decided the title of the petitioners and share of the parties which is not within their jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition be allowed, impugned orders be set aside and mutation No.2124 dated 25-3-1981 be restored.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and has contended that under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, the exclusive jurisdiction vest to the revenue authorities to make a correction in the mutation which were done accordingly. He further contends that the order passed by the District Officer (Revenue) is in accordance with law who has corrected the share of legal heirs of deceased Bahawal and have not committed any illegality nor the impugned orders suffer any jurisdic tional error.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. Admittedly, Bahawal was died in the year, 1981 and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned on 25-3-1981. Mst. Taj Bibi respondent No.4 filed an application for review of mutation No.2124 dated 25-3-1981 on 3.12.2005 after lapse of more then 24 years, this review petition was accepted by respondent No. 3 on 25-4-2007.

7. Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act empowers a Revenue Officer to review a mutation and period of limitation for filing a review petition has been provided 90 days. Despite the fact that the review petition was barred by more than 24 years and respondent No.4 has also not filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The review application was allowed. The petitioners also deny that Mst. Taj Bibi is not a legal heir of deceased Bahawal. A number of controversial questions of fact, question of title etc, were involved which were not within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities, but all the three forums below had been proceeding with the matter without taking into consideration the crucial question of limitation and jurisdiction.

8. Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act though entrusts the Revenue Officer with power to review a matter subject to certain conditions at the same time, the Land Revenue Act provides that in case of complicated questions of fact, question of title, fraud or such like other matters, will be decided by the Civil Court. The Land Revenue Act at the very outset provides that all matters before a revenue officer or before a revenue Court is of summary nature and in case of complicated questions of fact, the exclusive jurisdiction vests to the Civil Court to decide such matters. In the instant case, respondents No.1 to 3 have exceeded their jurisdiction and have played havoc with question of limitation and jurisdiction. The Revenue authorities could not be allowed to play with the fate of the people ignoring all norms and limitation provided under the law. Land Revenue Act is a special law which specifically provides period of limitation for review/revision/appeals etc, and the Revenue authorities could not be allowed to travel beyond these limitations. Further the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is also a non-speaking order, which is never appreciated by the Superior Courts.

9. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are set aside and mutation No. 2124 dated 25-3-1981 is restored. A.R.K./M-344/L Petition accepted.