P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Revision No. 1119 of 1962‑63, decided on 10th August 1963, District Lahore. Record‑of‑rights

‑Not judicial records. The facts of this revision, briefly, are that when the last male holder of the property in dispute Muhammad Hussain Baig died, the Assistant Collector, Lahore, mutated the property, vide Mutation No. U09, in favour of his son Fazal Hussain, the petitioner, and the two daughters on the strength of an oral will. Later on the respondent Jamila Begum who claims to be a widow of the deceased applied for a review of the mutation. Permission to that effect was accorded by the Collector and the Assistant Collector re‑opened the proceedings. As a result, he allowed Jamila Begum 1/8th of the property in dispute under Shariat. An appeal against this decision was preferred by Fazal Hussain but was rejected, and revision filed with the learned Additional Commissioner has also met the same fate. A second revision petition has now been made. The only point that has been taken up before me is that there was no evidence in the sense that the word is used in the Evidence Act to support the claim of Jamila Begum. Mutation proceedings according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are judicial proceedings and only evidence admissible under the Evidence Act should be permitted ; and in the absence of such evidence, these proceedings should be set aside. The inadmis sible evidence to which the learned counsel refers and on which the Revenue Officers below have relied consists of a book printed in 1922, relating to the family history of the parties. Jamila Begum is mentioned in this book as the wife of the deceased Muhammad Hussain. It is contended that this book could not be admitted in evidence and as mutation proceedings are judicial proceedings to which the Evidence Act is admissible, the decision arrived at should be set aside. I am afraid the learned counsel's plea is based on the wrong premise that the record‑of‑rights are judicial records. The record‑of‑rights are not judicial records and are maintained with the object of land revenue assessment and its realization. These records do no determine the rights of parties in the sense that a civil Court does during the course of judicial proceedings. Thus the deci sion in a mutation does not debar an aggrieved party from going to a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and have his rights determined. This view has been expressed by many learned Financial Commissioners before me and this still is the view of the Revenue Officer viz., that revenue records are not records- of‑rights and mutation proceedings do not determine the right of parties. This determination is left to the civil Courts. The legal issue whether Jamila Begum is or is not the widow of the deceased Muhammad Hussain Baig would be one for determina tion by the civil Courts. But for the purposes of the Land Revenue Act, the material which was produced before the Revenue Officers was sufficient to decide the mutation in her favour. The decision arrived at is therefore correct and the petition stands rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.