1990 PLP 1157 (SCMR)

Pending revision, on 4‑3‑1981, the Collector gave permission to review order dated 12‑7‑1979 whereby Mutation No. 165 was sanctioned. On 24‑3‑1981, the aforesaid Mutatin was reviewed. It was cancelled being hit by Martial Law Regulation No. 64.

4. On 24‑5‑1981, Rullia and others filed a suit for declaration that they were owner in possession of the suit land and the order of the Collector permitting review of Mutation 165 and the subsequent proceedings were void and without jurisdiction. Prior to this on the basis of the sale‑deed Mutation No. 189 was entered but it had not been sanctioned. Rullia and others filed a civil suit which was withdrawn on 2‑10‑1970. The civil suit filed on 24‑5‑1981 was contested by Fateh Muhammad and others who were defendants in that suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 18‑2‑1986 observing thereby that both the parties were guilty of violating Martial Law Regulation 64 and as such were in parti defcto. The plaintiffs/respondents filed an appeal. Additional District Judge dismissed the same on 8th of May, 1980 on the ground that the Civil Courts were debarred from examining the legality of the orders of the Collector and the Re7venue~Authorilics. Nevertheless, the Additional District Judge observed, that the sat;. was is violation of Martial Law Regulation No.

64. Against the order of the Additional District Judge Rullia and others filed civil revision which was accepted by means of the impugend judgment against which leave is being sought by Fateh Muhammad and others. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at full length. He repeated the same contentions which had been raised before the High Court but was unable to substantiate those either by citing any provision of law or by any decided case of this Court or even that of any High Court.

5. The first and the foremost question to be considered is, "Was the Collector competent in law to give permission to the Assistant Collector to review mutation dated 12‑7‑1979 and what is the position in law of the subsequent orders passed in consequence. of that?" Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 is to be following effect:‑‑ "

163. Review.‑‑(1) A Commissioner, Collector or an Assistant Collector, may, at any time, on his own motion, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors‑in‑office, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm the same. (2) ..................... .......................... .......................... (ii) ..................... (b) .................... (c) .................... (d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed." This aspect was thoroughly examined by the High Court both in accordance with the aforesaid provision of law and the case‑law referred to in the impugned judgment by the learned Judge. It was, therefore, rightly observed by the High Court that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order which had been confirmed in appeal. The dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam and another P L D 1970 SC 196 was thus rightly applied. Another legal hurdle in the way of the petitioners is that the earlier suit filed by them was dismissed by the trial Court on 27‑2‑1975. This judgment was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge on 17‑6‑1978. These two decisions were never challenged by the petitioners and as such they had attained finality.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 having transferred the land in dispute to the respondents for valuable consideration could not subsequently include the same in the property gifted by him to his sons. This is neither legal nor proper.' So we don't find any point in favour of the petitioners nor there is any error of law in the impugned judgment. As a matter of fact, the High Court considered all the points urged before the learned Judge who dealt with the same in accordance with the law and the dictum laid down by this Court in the cases referred to in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in this petition. Leave is refused and the petition dismissed. H.B.T./F‑186/S Leave to appeal refused.