P L D (Rev (PLP)

| | | | Muhammad Muhammad Umar Taj Muhammad Muhammad Nawaz Karim Khan(Petitioner) (deceased) Din | Muhammad Taj | _____________________________________ | | Muhammad Ghauns Muhammad Shafi (ii) The mutation of inheritance was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in favour of the three surviving sons, Muhammad Karam Din, Muhammad Umar Khan and Muhammad Niwaz and a grandson Muhammad Taj, in equal share, vide his order, dated the 19th March, 1944. , (iii) On 20th July 1944, Muhammad Ghauns (respondent), son of Muhammad Karam Din applied for the review of the above‑mentioned order, on the strength of an unregistered Will, dated the 3rd March, 1941, said to have been executed by the late Muqarridar, Muhammad Hassan Din. According to this Will the Muqarridari rights were to pass exclusively to Muhammad Ghauns and his brother Muhammad Shafi. On the recommendation of the Tahsildar, the Collector permitted the review, vide his order, dated 3rd October, 1944. (iv) On 19th February 1945 the Naib‑Tahsildar, holding the Will to be genuine, directed that the Muqarridari rights be mutated in ravour of Muhammad Ghauns and Muhammad Shafi. Muhammad Karam Din, father of Muhammad Ghauns and Muhammad Shafi, appealed to the Collector, who, upheld the decision of the Naib‑Tahsildar, vide his order, dated 24th April, 1945.

4. Colonel Muhammad Umar Khan applied to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, in revision. The Commissioner has pointed out firstly, that the application for review was filed by Muhammad Ghauns on 20th July, 1944 being more than 90 days after the passing of the order reviewed. No sufficient cause for this delay had been given by the applicant. Thus the provisions of section 15 (1) (b) of the Land Revenue Act, were not complied with. Secondly, it has been urged that Assistant Collector 2nd grade did not comply with the provisions of section 15 (1) (c) of the Land Revenue Act when reversing the previous orders of 19th March, by his order dated 19th 1944 February, 1945 in review, as the parties affected were not given a reasonable notice. The Commissioner, therefore, recommends that the case be remanded and proceeded with afresh.

5. The first objection raised by the Commissioner is not tenable in view of the ruling by the Privy Council in 15 Lahore 216 in which it was held that where a Revenue Officer acting under section 15, sub section (1) of the Act of 1887, has reviewed and reversed an order passed more than 90 days before the application to review, it is to be assumed that the Revenue Officer was satisfied as required by the sub section, that the applicant had sufficient cause for not applying within that period.

6. As regards the second objection raised by the Commissioner, clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 15 of Land Revenue Act lays down that an order should, not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order. This provision is framed in mandatory language. Strict compliance with this, must be enforced as any evasion or side‑trading of it will render justice impossible. It was also held by one of my predecessors. Mr. C. C. Garbett in 1941 L L T 13 that it was improper on the part of a Revenue Officer to review his own mutation order without notice to the party concerned. In sub‑pars (iii) of para 7'4 of the Land Records Manual, it is clearly laid down that the order should show whether the parties interested were all present; or, if any one was absent, the way in which his evidence was obtained or if it was not obtained what opportunity was given to him to be present. In the mutation order of 19th February, 1945, it is stated that Captain Muhammad Umar Khan had filed three appli cations for mutations dated 10th January, 1945, second without date and third dated 5th February, 1945. It is argued that these applica tions show that Captain Muhammad Umar Khan the applicant had proper notice. The record however does not support this contention. It appears on the contrary, that the Revenue Assistant returned the report of the Tahsildar with the remark that " statements of all the interested persons in whose favour the mutation has been sanctioned should also be recorded, if they have any objection in the review of the mutation." The Tahsildar returned the case with the following endorsement :‑ "The other persons interested in the case are serving in the Military and the mutation case was decided in their absence". This clearly shows that no attempt was made to give an opportunity to the other persons, interested to represent their case. In the Naib Tahsildar's order it is clearly stated that even three applications said to have been filed by Captain Muhammad Umar Khan were not before him when his order was passed.

7. The recommendation of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, is hereby accepted and the mutation order dated 19th February, 1945 passed by the Naib Tahsildar in mutation case No. 284 of village Jamgah, Tahsil and district Attock, is set aside. The case is remanded back for fresh disposal in accordance with law and after full compliance with section 15 (1) (c) of the Land Revenue Act read with sub‑para. (iii) of para. T4 Punjab Land Records Manual Inform parties and their counsel accordingly. K. M. A. Case remanded.