2026 PLP 717 (CLC)

RASHAD AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VIII).

This Review Petition in R.O.R. No. 2009/2024 has been filed under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the impugned order dated 29-01-2025, passed by the Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the order dated 29-07-2024, passed by the ACR (Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore) was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application dated 06-07-2010 through special attorney Imran Saeed before the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan, seeking correction of revenue record and cancellation of Mutation No. 2454 dated 14-10-2009. The learned ADCR (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Rahim Yar Khan) accepted the application vide order dated 26-10-2021. The petitioners' appeal was allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) through a detailed order dated 29-07-2024. However, the respondents filed Revision Petition No. 2009/2024, which was accepted by the learned Member (Judicial-VIII) vide order dated 29-01-2025. Thus, this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is contrary to both facts and law and does not address the core controversy, namely, whether a revenue forum has jurisdiction to determine disputes involving long-standing entries in the periodical record. It was submitted that the respondents' application dated 06-07-2010 was filed more than a year after the sanctioning of the mutation in question and was thus barred by limitation. It was argued that the impugned order incorrectly held that the General Power of Attorney used in relation to Mutation Nos. 2454 and 2459 did not refer to the land in Saidpur. In response, the petitioners produced in original, and also on file as certified copies, three General Powers of Attorney No. 701 dated 13-09-2004, No. 702 dated 13-09-2004, and No. 4478 dated 25-10-2004--duly executed by Hamid Saeed, Farrukh Saeed, Hassan Saeed, Rizwana Bibi, Imran Saeed, Durdana Begum, and Shah Jahan Begum. These documents covered both the Ahatta property of Mandi Sadiqabad and the land situated in village Saidpur.

4. It was specifically emphasized that Line No. 3 of the said powers of attorney expressly mentions the land of village Saidpur and the documents granted broad authority to the attorney to transfer property, even to relatives. These powers were registered before the Sub-Registrar, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, and verified by the Sub-Registrar Sadiqabad through letter dated 29-08-2008. Further verification from the Sub-Registrar, Iqbal Town dated 02-09-2008, confirmed the validity of both documents. The learned counsel submitted that there is no civil court decree against Mutation Nos. 2454 and 2459, and any observation to the contrary in the impugned order arose from a factual misunderstanding.

5. It was further argued that under Section 53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, any person aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights must approach a civil court for declaratory relief. Since the dispute involved contested facts and allegations of fraud, the revenue court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Accordingly the order dated 26-10-2021 passed by the learned ADCR was liable to be set aside. The petitioners asserted that the respondents' application under Sections 166 and 172 did not pray for cancellation of the mutation and was thus non-maintainable. The learned ACR had rightly dismissed it through a well-reasoned order dated 29- 07-2024.

6. The petitioners contended that they are bona fide purchasers through registered instruments that remain valid and effective. Reliance was placed on PLD 1994 SC 336, 2004 SCMR 604 and PLD 2020 Lahore 478, which collectively held that disputes involving fraud or complicated title issues must be resolved by civil courts, not by revenue authorities. The learned ACR rightly applied this legal principle and passed a reasoned order which deserves to be upheld.

7. It was further submitted that the entries in the petitioners' favor had attained finality after ten years and could not be reopened before the revenue court. The presumption of correctness attaches to long-standing entries unless challenged before a competent civil court. In support, reliance was placed on 2014 CLC 1484, where an application filed after 65 years was rightly dismissed on the ground that it fell within the exclusive domain of civil jurisdiction under Section 53.

8. The learned counsel invoked the doctrine of acquiescence, asserting that the respondents' predecessors never objected to the transaction during their lifetime. 2002 SCMR 1330 was cited to argue that successors lack locus standi to challenge a mutation not contested by the predecessor. Further reliance was placed on 2020 YLR 666, where a delay of 16 years led to dismissal and 2011 SCMR 222, wherein a 28-year delay in challenging a mutation was held fatal due to lack of timely action or plausible justification.

9. It was also argued that the respondents' application was hopelessly time-barred under Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which provides a limitation of 30 days. The learned ACR rightly held the application not maintainable. Moreover, the nature of the dispute involved complex facts and rival versions, requiring evidence, which the revenue court is not empowered to record. The petitioners contended that the order dated 26-10-2021 passed by the ADCR merely reproduced the respondents' written arguments and reflected absence of judicial mind.

10. Further, the revision petition filed by the respondents violated Rule 3 of the Board of Revenue Conduct of Appeals and Revision Rules, 1959, as it did not include certified copies of essential documents, such as the application dated 06-07-2010 and the original mutation order. The learned counsel argued that these procedural defects alone warranted dismissal of the revision.

11. The learned counsel also argued that the ADCR's order dated 26-10-2021 was passed without jurisdiction, as he was not hearing an appeal under Section 161 or a review under Section 163 of the Act. If the respondents were aggrieved, they ought to have filed a civil suit. The ACR, having examined all aspects, had rightly passed a speaking order dated 29-07-2024, which ought to be restored. The counsel emphasized that Section 53 applies, and any person aggrieved by a record entry must seek declaratory relief under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

12. As to the allegation of fraud, the counsel submitted that the respondents themselves alleged fraud and are thus required to prove it before a civil court. Revenue forums lack jurisdiction to determine such matters. Once fraud is alleged, the burden shills to the claimant to seek redress in civil jurisdiction through framing of issues and evidence. Accordingly entries in the revenue record must stand unless declared void by a civil court.

13. It was further argued that the present case is not one of mere correction under Section 172 of the Act. Rather, the issue concerns cancellation of a mutation based on a registered power of attorney. The respondents failed to point out any clerical or factual error and instead attempted to reframe a civil dispute as a case of administrative correction. The matter therefore clearly falls under Section 53, and only a civil court has jurisdiction.

14. The learned counsel rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that fraud nullifies limitation, stating that even in cases involving alleged fraud, it must first be proved. Here, the impugned mutations were sanctioned under Section 42 on the basis of validly executed instruments. If the respondents disputed their validity, they were required to approach the civil court under Section 12(2), C.P.C. which they failed to do.

15. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order reflects a fundamental misreading of both law and fact. The objections raised therein has now been answered with documentary evidence and legal authority. If the respondents were truly aggrieved, their proper recourse lay before a civil court. Their attempt to convert a civil controversy into an administrative correction is impermissible. The ADCR lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a matter. The civil decree remains valid and operative, and therefore, the review petition merits acceptance.

16. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are owners of land measuring 184 Kanals situated in Mouza Saidpur, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, by virtue of inheritance Mutation No. 2453 dated 14.10.2009. As the respondents resided in Lahore, they had entrusted the management of the property to their close relatives, the petitioners. However, the petitioners dishonestly and without lawful authority transferred the land through Oral Sale Mutations Nos. 2454 and 2459, both dated 14.10.2009, on the basis of irrelevant and inapplicable General Powers of Attorney.

17. Upon discovering these fraudulent transactions, the respondents filed applications for rectification of the revenue record. Inquiries conducted by the field staff confirmed that the impugned mutations had been sanctioned based on non-existent or irrelevant powers of attorney. Consequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the respondents' applications and restored their ownership through a reasoned order dated 26.10.2021. However, this order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, on 29.07.2024, directing the respondents to seek relief from the civil court. This sequence of events culminated in the revision petition before this Honourable Court.

18. The learned counsel emphasized that the revision petition was rightly accepted by this Honourable Court through a speaking order dated 29.01.2025, following due consideration of the entire record. It was submitted that under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, the scope of review is limited, and the petitioners have not demonstrated any legal error, procedural irregularity, or new evidence warranting reconsideration. Hence, the review petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

19. It was further argued that Mutation No. 2454 was based on three General Powers of Attorney-No. 701, No. 702 (both dated 13.09.2004), and No. 4478 dated 25.10.2004- which pertained only to a residential property (Ihata No. 88-C, Khewat No. 413/396, Khatooni No. 466, Hadbast Mouza Mandi Sadiqabad) and had no connection whatsoever to the agricultural land situated in Mouza Saidpur. Similarly, Mutation No. 2459 relied on irrelevant Attorney No. 701.

20. The learned counsel relied on PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 16 (Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Imran), which held that a power of attorney must specifically describe the subject land. Additional reliance was placed on AIR 1928 Calcutta 385 (Nahar Lal Shah v. Baij Nath Shah), PLD 2013 SC 190 (Umair Ali Khan v. Faiz Rasool), PLD 2005 SC 418 (Imam Din v. Bashir Ahmed) and 2001 SCMR 1700 (Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna) to reinforce the principle that a power of attorney lacking precise land description is legally ineffective and cannot aornerize the transfer of land.

21. The Supreme Court in PLD 1985 SC 341 (Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan) cautioned against the presumption that a general power of attorney includes authority to alienate property unless clearly stated. In cases involving fraud, such as the present one, this principle becomes even more significant. The counsel also invoked Section 215 of the Contract Act, underscoring an agent's duty to obtain express consent when dealing with the principal's immovable property.

22. Furthermore, it was argued that under Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908, every non-testamentary document concerning immovable property must provide sufficient detail to identify the land. The impugned powers of attorney failed this statutory requirement.

23. The learned counsel submitted that Mansoor Ameen, acting as attorney, unlawfully transferred the land to his maternal nephews (the petitioners), violating the principles laid down in 2022 SCMR 1068 (Haq Nawaz v. Banaras) and 2016 SCMR 1781 (Mst. Naila Kauser v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh), which categorically hold that an attorney cannot transfer property in favor of close relatives unless expressly authorized.

24. The counsel highlighted several procedural defects in the impugned transactions. The mutations were never recorded in the Roznamcha Woqiati, contravening Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The petitioners failed to provide any proof of consideration being paid to the true owners. The transactions lacked property details, land quantum, or legal authority rendering them fictitious and without legal effect.

25. On the issue of limitation, the learned counsel rebutted the petitioners' argument, asserting that since the parties were close relatives and the respondents were based in Lahore, the fraud remained concealed for some time. Once discovered, immediate legal steps were taken. In 2002 SCMR 343 (Haji Hussain Bux Sain v. M.V. Kherati), the Supreme Court clarified that limitation begins from the date of knowledge in fraud cases.

26. The counsel argued further that a document void ab initio, such as an irrelevant power of attorney, need not be formally challenged. Citing PLD 1975 SC 335, it was submitted that such void documents are considered legally non-existent.

27. Refuting the petitioners' reliance on Section 53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, the learned counsel contended that this case does not involve a civil dispute of title. Since the powers of attorney are fraudulent and non-existent, the matter falls under Section 172, which empowers revenue authorities to correct fraudulent entries. Support was drawn from 2009 CLC 542 and 1983 CLC (Peshawar) 3156, where it was held that even longstanding revenue entries may be rectified if they are based on fraud or unlawful authority.

28. To reinforce the legal powers of revenue officers in such matters, the counsel cited PLJ 1992 Rev. 83 / 1992 CLC 1600 (Muhammad Ali v. Usman Ghani), asserting that District Collectors and ADCRs act as custodians of land records and may rectify entries where fraud is evident. Thus, the ADCR's order dated 26.10.2021 was passed within jurisdiction and in accordance with law.

29. In conclusion, the learned counsel submitted that the powers of attorney used for the impugned mutations were legally invalid, the transactions were fraudulent, and the respondents' ownership was lawfully restored through due administrative process. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, procedural flaw, or emergence of new evidence to justify interference with the order dated 29.01.2025. The review petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play.

30. Record perused, and arguments have been heard.

31. After careful consideration it is evident that the powers of attorney produced by the petitioners were valid, registered, and covered the land in village Saidpur. The mutation in question was sanctioned based on these documents, which were duly verified before the transaction. The learned Member (Judicial-VIII) erred in overlooking the documentary evidence and instead relied on a misapprehension of facts. The application of the respondents was not only delayed beyond the statutory limitation period but also involved disputed questions of title and allegations of fraud, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy. The superior courts have consistently held in PLD 1994 SC 336, 2004 SCMR 604, PLD 2020 Lahore 478 and 2014 CLC 1484 that such matters must be resolved by a civil court.

32. Furthermore the principle of acquiescence and bar of limitation, as laid down in 2002 SCMR 1330, 2020 YLR 666 and 2011 SCMR 222, clearly apply. The respondents' silence for over a decade renders their belated challenge unsustainable. The learned ACR rightly considered all aspects and passed a well-reasoned order, while the order dated 26-10-2021 was both procedurally and substantively flawed.

33. The pivotal question requiring adjudication by this Court is whether a mutation duly sanctioned in the revenue record on the strength of a legal document can subsequently be annulled on the pretext of a clerical or factual mistake, premised upon allegations that the GPA was non-existent, fraudulent, or otherwise void; or that the mutation was entered without execution of a valid GPA ; and that the power of attorney relied upon was legally insufficient to effectuate a transfer of title in favour of close relatives. The respondents, asserting the GPA to be void ab initio, have taken the position that no recourse to a civil forum is required for redressal. In this backdrop, the core legal issue for determination is whether the revenue authorities, exercising summary jurisdiction, are vested with the competence to entertain and adjudicate such intricate and contentious claims claims which inherently require the framing of issues, appreciation of documentary and oral evidence, and a full-fledged trial under the ordinary civil procedure. The revenue laws do not empower Revenue Courts to resolve such intricate and complex matters of civil litigation in a summary manner, which requires an exhaustive procedural framework to arrive at a final determination.

34. It is settled law that revenue authorities are creatures of statute and are confined strictly to the jurisdiction vested in them under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. They are not courts of plenary jurisdiction and cannot venture into questions that involve adjudication of civil rights, title, or allegations of fraud, which require framing of issues and recording of evidence. As held in PLD 2011 SC 512 and PLD 2010 SC 1, the moment a party alleges fraud or disputes title based on civil documents, the matter transcends the limited summary jurisdiction of the revenue forum. The appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit, where the parties can adduce evidence and obtain a binding declaration. Permitting revenue officers to cancel or nullify mutations rooted in registered documents would not only amount to exceeding jurisdiction but would render such instruments legally uncertain, defeating the principles of finality and sanctity attached to judicial pronouncements and registered acts under the Registration Act, 1908." It is all the more ironic and legally untenable that the respondents, despite alleging fraud and having knowledge of the decree as per their own assertions, knowingly and deliberately avoided pursuing the appellate and remedial forums available under the civil law.

35. The scope of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is narrow and exceptional, requiring a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, or at jurisdictional or legal misapprehension so fundamental as to vitiate the underlying order. The impugned order dated 29-01-2025, passed by the some Member (Judicial-VIII), departed from settled legal principles and disregarded material evidence that had formed the foundation of the earlier, well-reasoned order dated 29-07-2024. It proceeded on a misconstruction of both law and fact, failed to engage with the statutory limitations on revenue jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and overlooked the evidentiary value of registered documents duly produced on record. This Court, therefore, is not reappreciating evidence, but correcting a manifest legal error that strikes at the very root of judicial consistency and jurisdictional propriety. The review is thus not only maintainable, but imperative to uphold the integrity of adjudication within the bounds of lawful authority it was compelled by the imperatives of justice, legality, and institutional discipline.

36. It is both ironic and perplexing that the respondents never availed themselves of the remedies available under the law by instituting any civil or criminal proceedings. No recourse was taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, nor was any action initiated under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

37. The learned counsel for the respondents has advanced weighty and well-reasoned arguments pertaining to the alleged commission of fraud, the mandatory requirement of a duly executed decree, the inapplicability of limitation in the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the validity, scope, and competence conferred by the General Power of Attorney. However, the pivotal issue remains whether a revenue court is legally vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters.

38. The District Collector is empowered to effect corrections in the revenue record only where the illegality or irregularity is manifest, apparent on the face of the record, and already established through a recognized legal or investigative process. Where the matter necessitates a detailed appraisal of evidence for the determination of such questions particularly in matters involving allegations or commission of fraud, the validity or competence under a General Power of Attorney, the enforceability of a decree, the requirement of execution of a decree, or the applicability of limitation the jurisdiction of not only the District Collector, but all revenue courts stand ousted. In such circumstances, revenue courts lack the lawful competence to venture into adjudication of such complex and inherently civil disputes. Therefore, the respondent has no lawful grounds to seek relief from the revenue courts in a matter which squarely falls within the domain of civil adjudication.

39. In view of the foregoing, this petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29-01-2025, passed by the Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, is set aside. The order dated 29-07-2024. passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), is upheld, and as a result, the earlier order dated 26-10-2021 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rahim Yar Khan, stands set aside. The respondents may seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. File be consigned to record room after completion. MQ/12/Rev Review allowed.