2012 PLP 1365 (CLC)

DR. ALLAH BAKHSH MALIK (MEMBER JUDICIAL-VIII).

This appeal assails the order of learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi dated 28-12-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Wajid Hussain son of Fazal Rahim, Caste Jutt R/O Khanpur, P.O. Khanbi, Tehsil Sara-e-Almgir District Gujrat has pleaded that the order passed by the learned District Officer (Revenue) in the first round of litigation dated 30-6-2008, had attained the finality between the parties. It has been contended that the rights of the parties had been settled and could not be reviewed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction, vested in the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue). It was also contended that Mutations Nos.7685 and 7686 were entered on 18-6-2008 when the matter was pending adjudication before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue).

2. The orders of learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi have been carefully examined and diligently tested on the anvil of substantive law and in the light of esteemed judgments of Superior Courts. The matter started with Mutation No.6095 entered on 30-11-2000. The Mutation was entered on the basis of gift to Mr. Zahir Khan. The perusal of the record reveals that the proceedings quintessential prerequisite for gift were complete in all respect since there was an offer, acceptance and delivery of possession. The learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents did not question the authenticity of Mutation on the basis of gift. None of the counsel pointed out any infirmity or irregularity in the proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Officer at the time of entering and attestation of Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2000. The basic principles defined in case of gift are, 'offer', acceptance' and transfer of 'possession' (PLD 1981 Revenue No. 34). The Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2000 was incorporated in the record of rights and entries remained intact till 30-6-2008, when the learned District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum cancelled Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2000. In the first instance, the learned District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum did not care about the period of limitation in this case. He did not give, any justification to condone the inordinate delay, sine quo non, according to the provisions of section 5 of The Limitation Act. Moreover the Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides special period of limitation of its own and delay in filing appeal/application cannot be excused by virtue of section 29 of The Limitation Act and section 167 of the Land Revenue Act. (1989 CLC 124). The learned District Office (Revenue) did not mention about any fraud, forgery or misrepresentation regarding the proceedings and sanctioning of Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2008. In case of such an eventuality, there would have been some legal grounds to proceed with the case. In case there was an irregularity or infirmity regarding the attestation of gift Mutation No.6095, the appropriate forum to assail the order was the Civil Court. In the instant case, this option was not exercised by the party before approaching the court of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue). (1986 MLD 608). It has been held by the honourable Superior Courts that factual controversies could only be resolved by Civil Courts, having plenary jurisdiction (2004 SCMR 604). Revenue Courts should refrain from adjudicating complicated questions of fact and law and such matters should be agitated before Civil Courts (PLD 1985 Revenue 194). As a lame excuse and to cover up their failure to observe the prescribed limitation period, the parties generally fall back upon the presumption of, 'Knowledge of Order', and the date on which a particular Mutation was sanctioned. Such assumptions might have been the whole truth, only before our society entered into Cyber Speed on Electronic Super Highways of Communication through internet, mobile phones and land lines. In the instant case, it is impossible that parties remained ignorant about the Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2000 for 8 long years. It is a truism that information in the villages is symmetrical because of frequent interaction and clear visibility of happenings especially possession of a particular piece of land and its cultivation by a particular household. The villagers especially farmers see each other working in fields, almost on daily basis and nothing remains oblivious regarding the cultivation, improvement and crops on a particular piece of land. The gifted land in question was occupied by the new owner and he constructed a boundary wall and the premises was also locked by him. It is beyond imagination that such a construction which is a landmark in a small village, was invisible to the party before approaching learned District Officer (Revenue). After a long delay of eight years, District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum, in all fairness, should not have entertained the appeal for cancellation of the Mutation No.6095 sanctioned many years earlier, primarily because of the reasons that:

(i) The period of limitation applied; (ii) No fraud or forgery or misrepresentation was committed or reported; (iii) Sanctity of Record of Rights and the resultant uncalled change impacting the repose of society; (iv) Unnecessary litigation causing dissentions in a society already in the fragmentation mode.

3. So far as Mutations bearing No.7685 and 7686 dated 18-6-2008 are concerned, the two Mutations were also cancelled as a consequence of cancellation of Mutation No.6095 dated 30-11-2011. The fact remains, that at the time of sanctioning of Mutations No.7685 and 7686 dated 18-6-2008, there was no status quo order from any court of competent jurisdiction.

4. The subordinate Revenue Courts Presiding Officers are instructed to keep in mind the provisions of law especially about the law of limitation until and unless there are extenuating circumstances like fraud, forgery or misrepresentation, determined by the law and guided by the esteemed judgments of honourable Superior Courts. (PLJ 1975, Revenue 188)(sic). The subordinate courts must keep in mind the provisions of section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1908 and section 115 of The Civil Procedure Code 1908, It has been ordained, that delay of each day has got to be satisfactorily explained. (2003 YLR 295). As Presiding Officers of the Revenue Courts, they shall be cognizant of the impact of their decisions on the valuable rights of the people. Before adjudication of matters of rights, utmost care and diligence shall be exercised by the Revenue Courts.

5. After hearing the arguments and perusing the case-law, I am of the considered opinion that the order of learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi is correct and therefore upheld. The Mutations bearing No.6095 dated 30-11-2000 is restored and the subsequent Mutations bearing Nos.7685 and 7686 dated 18-6-2008 are also restored. Tehsildar concerned is directed to incorporate the elixir and operative part of the judgment into the Revenue Record accordingly. S.A.K./2/Rev. Appeal accepted.