P L D 1966 W (PLP)

P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 54 rel. Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Petitioner. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 28th of March 1962, passed by Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he refused to review his own order dated the 7th of February 1964. The facts of the case are that a sale mutation was entered at the instance of Maqsood Ahmad, Mukhtar‑e‑Am of Sher Ali on 1‑5‑1962 in favour of Maqbool Ahmad (brother of Mukhtar‑e- Am). The Mukhtar‑e‑Am made a statement before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on the 19th of June 1962 wherein the sale and change of possession were admitted. The Assistant Collector under a wrong misapprehension that the Collector's sanction was necessary because the parties belonged to different districts, sent up the papers to the Collector, but these were returned with the remarks that no such approval was necessary. The mutation was then sanctioned on the 4th of October 1963 although Sher Ali had died on the 14th of December 1962. The petitioner, brother of Sher Ali, filed a revision direct to the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur. On the date of hearing, the petitioner was absent, but Maqsud Ahmad, Mukhtar‑e‑Am and the counsel for the respondent were present. The Additional Commissioner rejected the petition on 7‑2‑1964. The petitioner went in review, but it was also rejected on the 28th of March 1964. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the first instance, an objection was raised that the revision petition was time‑barred. If it is considered to be a revision petition against the review order it will be within time. Even if the limitation is supposed to start from 7‑2‑1964; there will be justification for extending limitation as that order was passed in the absence of the petitioner. I, therefore, see no force in this contention. The next question for consideration is whether a mutation could be sanctioned after Sher Ali had died on 14‑12‑1962. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.)

54. Therein, it has been laid down that a mutation can be sanctioned even after the death of a party if the requirements of law were complete in respect of the transaction at an earlier date. In this case, all the require ments had been fulfilled on the 19th of June 1962. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, would have sanctioned the mutation if he did not labour, under a misapprehension that the Collector's sanction was needed. This is a case which is governed by the principles laid down in the above‑mentioned ruling. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.