2004 PLP 684 (YLR)

11. The Revenue Officer under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is empowered to dispose of or take cognizance of the matter in which Government, the Board of Revenue vest on it, the Revenue Officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters as provided in subsection (2) of section 172 of the Act. The Revenue Officer further enjoys the power under section 175 of the Act to remove encroachment made by any person from the land reserved for common purposes.

12. So far as the enquiry with regard to the registered documents is concerned, there is no provision in the West- Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 which empowers a Revenue Officer to inquire into such-like matter. Even the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 has not empowered the Revenue Officer to take cognizance of the matter like the matter in hand.

13. The registered Sale-Deed Nos.997 and 998 registered by the Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act can be challenged through a civil suit and it is the Civil Court which is competent to declare the same as a forged and fabricated. A procedure is provided in section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 to make an enquiry before registration by the Sub-Registrar which reads as under:-- "Section 34 (1).

Subject to the provisions contained in this part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the person executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the Registering Officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 provided that if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where, the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may, be registered. The Registration Officer shall thereupon-- (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed: (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. (4) An application for -a direction under the proviso to subsection (1) may be lodged with a Sub- Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. It means that if there is any complaint to the Sub-Registrar he can make enquiry in this regard before registering the document. In this case the Sub-Registrar had made inquiry at site and thereafter registered the Sale-Deeds Nos. 798 and 799.

14. The present petitioner had filed a suit for declaration in respect of the property in dispute on the basis of said two registered sale-deeds attested on 16-12-2001 in his favour which Were the subject matter of the suit. Section 195, Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence and this section further emerges, that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475 and 476, P.P.C., when such offence is alleged to have been committed by, a party to any proceeding in any Court in, respect of a document produced or given in such proceeding except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate:

15. The Civil Court has not determined as yet that the alleged sale-deeds (798 and 799) were result of fraud and fabrication. The proposition dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court was the interpretation of section 195(1) (c) wherein it was held that the offences mentioned in this clause are non-cognizable offences and the police has, before it can embark upon their investigation, to obtain the permission of a Magistrate. The facts of this case and the proposition are not attracted to this case.

16. The question that boils down for determination in this case is whether the D.D.O.(R) was competent to adjudicate or make an investigation with regard to registered sale-deed, registered under the Registration Act.

17. It is the power of a police officer to register a case/F.I.R. on a complaint made to it with regard to commission of a cognizable offence. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, any every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government prescribes in this behalf:-- Section 156, Cr.P.C. further narrates that:

(1) Any officer incharge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under subsection (3) of section 156 of the Cr.P.C. is empowered under section 190 to make investigation as above mentioned.

18. From the plain reading of the above provisions of section 156, Cr.P.C. it is, therefore, manifestly clear that the police under this section has the statutory right to investigate the circumstances of the alleged cognizable crime without any permission from the judicial authorities and such statutory right cannot be interfered with by the judiciary.

19. There is no cavil with the fact that the parallel civil as well as criminal inquiry can continue before the appropriate forum but respondent No. 1, D.D.O. (R) was not the appropriate forum in this regard. He lacks the jurisdiction to make any inquiry with regard to the private property of a person. Respondent No.2 neither based the findings of the Civil Court nor approached the police officer in exercise of his power under section 154, Cr.P.C.

20. As to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the D.D.O. has proceeded under the direction of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.6576 of 2001 titled `Falak Sher v. A.C. etc.' This petition was filed by respondent No.2, which came up for hearing before this Court on 23-4-2001. The complaint before the Army Monitoring Cell filed by the petitioner, was submitted on 1-1-2001 which was remitted to respondent No.1 for inquiry. It means that application of said respondent No.2 was prior in time than filing of his writ petition, which was disposed of on 3-12-2001 with the observation as under:-- "The Deputy District Officer (Revenue) is still conducting the inquiry relating to the matter agitated in the present petition. This case is, therefore, disposed of. The petitioner, however, shall have a right to all available legal remedies on the basis of the report in question." It is clarified that this Court had not directed respondent No.1 to make inquiry. It is an admitted fact that the inquiry proceedings on the application of respondent No.2 Falak Sher were already pending before respondent No.1. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the inquiry was made under the direction of this Court is misconceived. Respondent No. 1, has concluded the inquiry with certain observations and according to the observation of this Court in disposing of Writ Petition (6575 of 2001) respondent No.2 has not availed of any of the legal remedy.

21. For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in observing that the inquiry proceeding and the impugned report dated 5-2-2003 by respondent No.1 is without backing of any legal authority, hence declared to have been initiated illegally and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and therefore, quashed. The present petition succeeds. H.B.T./M-2458/L Petition allowed.