2026 PLP 407 (CLC)

RASHAD AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VIII).

This Review Petition No.48/2025 in R.O.R. No. 2011/2024, has been filed under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the ACR, was set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application through special attorney Imran Saeed dated 06.07.2010, before the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan, for correction of revenue record and cancellation of Mutation No. 310 dated 13.03.1984. The learned ADCR (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Rahim Yar Khan) accepted the application vide order dated 26.10.2021. The appeal of the petitioners was accepted by the learned ACR (Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore) vide order dated 29.07.2024. The respondents filed Revision Petition No. 2010/2024, which was accepted by the learned Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order dated 29.01.2025. Thus, this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the impugned order has been passed against law and facts, as the controversy of jurisdiction where longstanding entries exist in periodical records was not addressed. He argued that the application dated 06.07.2010 was filed after a lapse of more than 26 years for cancellation of Mutation No. 310 sanctioned on 13.03.1984, and is barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on PLD 2016 SC 872.

4. It was submitted that the application was neither signed by Mst. Seema nor Mst. Lubna, and they never challenged the GPA. Their mother, Mst. Fahmeeda Begum, passed away 18 years ago, and no inheritance mutation was sought, which implies that respondents knew of Mutation No. 310 and raised no challenge during her lifetime. Reliance was placed on 2021 SCMR 1068, 2003 SCMR 1330, 2023 SCMR 1402, and 2020 YLR 666.

5. It was further alleged that the application dated 06.07.2010 was filed with mala fide intent to extort money, as on 13.03.1984, other Mutations Nos. 312-315 were also sanctioned in favour of Imran Saced and his relatives based on GPA from Zia-ul-Haq and Ahmad Saeed. Imran Saeed had full knowledge of these transfers, and the belated application was mala fide.

6. Petitioners also highlighted that Mutations Nos. 293, 294, and 295 dated 13.03.1983 were sanctioned in favour of Mst. Fahmeeda, Seema, and Lubna regarding sale of land and were never specifically. Hence, the learned ADCR's order was without jurisdiction, as he was neither hearing an appeal under Section 161 nor a review under Section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The order dated 26.10.2021 is without legal authority. Finally, it was argued that the learned ACR had passed a well-reasoned order on 29.07.2024.

7. The details of all mutations and general powers of attorney have already been narrated at length and assessed in the lower courts, including in the proceedings before the ADCR and the ACR, and are part of the case record. Therefore, repetition of each transaction is not necessary at this stage.

8. Addressing the next objection in the impugned order regarding the validity of General Power of Attorney Nos. 701, 702 dated 13.09.2004, and 4478 dated 25.10.2004, it was clarified that these were produced before the Member BOR. These powers were executed by Hamid Saeed, Farukh Saeed, and Hassan Saeed, sons, and Rizwana, daughter of Ahmad Saeed, concerning residential Ahatta of Mandi Sadiqabad and land in Mouza Saidpur. The line No. 3 of the GPA clearly mentioned Saidpur land. GPA No. 702 was executed by Imran Saeed, son of Mst. Durdana Begum and Shah Jahan Begum, widow of Zia-ul-Haq, covering the same properties and authorizing transfer even in favour of relatives. These were registered at Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, and verified by Sub-Registrar Sadiqabad (letter dated 29.08.2008) and Sub-Registrar Iqbal Town (letter dated 02.09.2008).

9. It was contended that the General Power of Attorney No. 3136, Book No. 4, Volume No. 5, Pages 247-248, dated 14.07.1982, remains intact and has never been challenged. Mutation No. 310 dated 13.03.1984, based on this GPA, pertained to land measuring 634 Kanals 05 Marlas. Since the GPA was registered, only the attorney was required to appear before the Revenue Officer, not the original owners.

10. It was further submitted that the ADCR wrongly decided the matter solely on non-production of the GPA, though certified copies were submitted. The impugned order was passed in undue haste, on a day the bar was on strike. Moreover, the GPA by Mst. Seema and Lubna in favour of Ch. Muhammad Anwar authorized alienation in favour of any person, including family members.

11. The controversial points raised in the application dated 06.07.2010 required evidence and could not be adjudicated summarily by Revenue Courts. The ADCR's order dated 26.10.2021 mirrors the written submissions of the respondents and lacks judicial reasoning. The oral mutation had been implemented in the Jamabandi for forty years and enjoys presumption of truth under Section 52 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Collector lacked jurisdiction to alter such entries. Reliance was placed on 2020 YLR 1776, 2010 YLR 2687, and 2014 CLC 1484.

12. It was reiterated that under Sections 44, 45, 52, and 53 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers is limited and longstanding entries cannot be undone unless so declared by a civil court.

13. It was emphasized that the respondents never challenged the General Power of Attorney in any civil court. The petitioners submitted that no civil court decree was produced by the respondents regarding Mutations Nos. 2454 and 2459, and the learned Member BOR misapprehended this point. Under Section 53, any person aggrieved must approach the civil court; the revenue court has no jurisdiction over fraud or title disputes.

14. Lastly, it was pointed out that the application dated 06.07.2010 was filed without any substantial legal basis. The learned ACR's order dated 29.07.2024 had addressed all issues thoroughly. The revision petition filed by the respondents had no merit, and the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 is liable to be set aside.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents are owners of land measuring 634 Kanals 05 Marlas situated in Mouza Tulla, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, based on Mutation of Inheritance No. 245 dated 09.03.1976. The petitioners, being close relatives, were entrusted with managing the land while the respondents' families resided abroad. It was alleged that the petitioners got the land transferred through Mutation No. 310 dated 13.03.1984 on the basis of an oral sale, fraudulently sanctioned by Ch. Muhammad Anwar without any valid Power of Attorney. The impugned mutation neither referenced nor contained any legitimate document of authority.

16. Upon discovering this transaction, the respondents filed an application for correction of the revenue record. The revenue staff submitted a detailed report confirming that the mutations were sanctioned based on non-existent or irrelevant Powers of Attorney. Accordingly, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev) accepted the application vide order dated 26.10.2021 and restored ownership in favour of the respondents. The petitioners' appeal was transferred to the Additional Commissioner (Rev), Lahore, who, vide order dated 29.07.2024, erroneously held that the matter be referred to civil court. Against that order, the respondents filed a revision petition, which was accepted by this Honourable Court vide order dated 29.01.2025.

17. The learned counsel submitted that the mutation in question was sanctioned by Ch. Muhammad Anwar allegedly acting as GPA holder of Mst. Fahmeeda Begum, but no such document was available on record. The relied-upon Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 3136 dated 14.07.1982 did not describe any specifie land, Khasra, Khata, or Khewat numbers, rendering it invalid for the purpose of transfer. He relied on PLJ 2021 Lahore (Note) 16 (Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Imran) and AIR 1928 Calcutta 385 (Nahar Lai Shah v. Baij Nath Shah) to argue that a valid Power of Attorney must contain full particulars. He also cited Unair Ali Khan v. Fait Rasool (PLJ (sic) SC 190), Imam Din v. Bashir Ahmed (PLJ 2005 SC 418), and Ali Ahmad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna (2001 SCMR 1700), reiterating that only powers expressly delegated may be exercised by an agent. He relied on Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (1984 SCMR 866) to argue that authority to alienate property must be explicit. He also cited Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908 which mandates full identification of property in any document affecting immovable property.

18. The learned counsel further submited that neither the alleged attorney appeared in court voluntarily nor was produced by the petitioners as a witness, invoking the presumption under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, he reiterated that insufficient description of property invalidates the GPA, relying again on AIR 1928 Calcutta 385.

19. He argued that a Power of Attorney must be strictly construed, with authority traceable within the document's four corners, citing 2004 YLR 288, 2001 SCMR 1700, and 2010 SCMR 1066. Furthermore, since the land was transferred by the attorney in favour of his relatives, it was a fiduciary breach. He relied on 2022 SCMR 1068 (Haq Nawaz v. Banaras) and 2016 SCMR 1781 (Mst. Naila Kausar v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh) to argue that no property transfer by an attorney to self or relatives is valid without explicit consent of the principal.

20. The legal framework also recognizes that an attorney, acting under a power of attorney, is bound by fiduciary obligations and cannot transfer property to himself or to his close relatives without the specific consent of the principal. The superior courts have consistently reaffirmed this principle in 2022 SCMR 1068 (Haq Nawaz v. Banaras) and 2016 SCMR 1781 (Mst. Naila Kausar v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh), holding that such actions by attorneys are void unless expressly authorized. The revenue forums have no authority to presume such authorization in the absence of specific legal proof and judicial adjudication.

21. He contended that the mutation was never entered into the Roznamcha Waqiati, violating Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. The absence of such entry vitiates the legal validity of the mutation and demonstrates a procedural irregularity on the face of the record.

22. There is also no evidence on file to substantiate the alleged payment of Rs. 80,000/- as sale consideration recorded in the mutation. The petitioners have failed to produce any documentary proof, receipt, or acknowledgment supporting the transaction. This casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the mutation and reinforces the disputed nature of the transaction.

23. He stated that the civil suit attached by the petitioners was irrelevant as it did not concern the property in dispute, which was transferred through oral mutation. The subject matter of the said suit pertains to a different parcel of land and has no bearing on the mutation under challenge. As such, reliance on this civil suit is legally misplaced and evidentially irrelevant.

24. On the issue of limitation, he submitted that most family members resided in Lahore and only discovered the fraudulent entries later. Upon gaining knowledge, the application was filed immediately. He emphasized that fraud vitiates limitation, citing 2002 SCMR 343 (Haji Hussain v. M.Y. Kherati), where the limitation runs from the date of knowledge. He added that where fraud is alleged, limitation cannot defeat a claim. He relied on 2009 CLC 542 and 1983 CLC 156.

25. He argued that Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act does not apply where the title document is void ab initio. Instead, under Section 172 and Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, the revenue authorities have full power to rectify entries based on fraud without requiring civil court decree. He emphasized that when no complicated question arises, the Revenue Officers can correct records to avoid unnecessary litigation. He cited 2007 SCMR 1062 and PLD 2013 Lahore 95 to support the argument that transfer based on invalid GPA is void ab initio.

26. He responded to the petitioners' challenge to ADCR's jurisdiction by citing PLJ 1992 Rev. 83/1992 CLC 1600 (Muhammad Ali v. Usman Ghani), affirming that the ADCR, as custodian of record-of-rights, has review powers and may correct fraudulent entries with permission from the Commissioner. He explained that the District Collector under instructions of the Board of Revenue is competent to sanction a review, and such authority is not excluded merely because a subordinate officer passed the original order.

27. He concluded that the revision petition was decided through a speaking order and the instant review fails to meet the criteria under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

28. Record perused, and arguments have been heard.

29. After reviewing the record, it is evident that the petitioners have raised a multi-layered factual and legal challenge to the impugned order dated 29.01.2025. They have demonstrated that the application leading to the cancellation of Mutation No. 310 was filed after an inordinate delay of 26 years and was therefore hit by limitation, supported by PLD 2016 SC

872. The long-standing mutation was based on a registered General Power of Attorney dated 14.07.1982, which remains unchallenged.

30. In light of 2020 YLR 1776, 2010 YLR 2687, and 2014 CLC 1484, the entries carried a presumption of truth under Section 52 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the jurisdiction to challenge such entries rests with the civil courts under Section 53, not Revenue Courts. The impugned order failed to address this jurisdictional limitation and did not acknowledge the requirement of instituting a declaratory suit, as reiterated in Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

31. Furthermore, the petitioners substantiated that certified copies of the GPA were placed before the competent authority and that the entire claim of the respondents lacks bona fide, as they remained silent for decades, which is detrimental under 2021 SCMR 1068, 2003 SCMR 1330, and 2020 YLR

666. It is also apparent from the record that the application was not even signed by the concerned parties and appears to be a post-facto attempt to challenge valid transactions concluded long ago.

32. The reasoning provided in the impugned order reflects reliance on submissions rather than independent judicial evoluation. In such circumstances, the order of the learned ACR dated 29.07.2024 appears to be based on sound reasoning and proper appraisal of jurisdictional

33. The mandate of Section 53 of the Punjab Laund Revenue Act, 1967, coupled with authoritative guidance from the superior courts in PLD 2012 Lahore 160, 2008 SCMR 1658, and 2021 CLC 689, clearly establishes that the revenue hierarchy acts in execution of civil rights determined by the civil court and cannot function as a parallel appellate or supervisory body.

34. The legal question that arises is whether a revenue court can cancel a mutation lawfully entered in the revenue record on the basis of a registered General Power of Attorney or Oral Transaction, and construe such mutation as a clerical or factual mistake on the pretext of alleged fraud. Had the mutation not been based on a legal document, a different legal scenario might have emerged, even then, establishing fraud would remain a necessary legal threshold before any corrective action. It is legally untenable that a mutation rooted in a legal document has been labeled a mistake merely to circumvent the procedural rigour of approaching a civil court.

35. Further undermining the respondents' position is the procedural defect apparent at the outset. The application was filed purportedly on behalf of individuals who were admittedly deceased, rendering the proceedings a legal nullity from inception. This defect, coupled with the complete absence of recourse to a civil court to challenge the legal documents strips the revenue forum of any jurisdiction. This conclusion finds reinforcement in 2021 SCMR 391, where it was categorically held that revenue courts exercise summary jurisdiction and lack competence to adjudicate questions of fraud, title, or complex civil rights arising out of civil litigation.

36. From an equitable standpoint, the conduct of the respondents also triggers the doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel. In 2002 SCMR 1330, 2020 YLR 666, and 2011 SCMR 222, the Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held that parties who remain silent for prolonged periods and fail to challenge transactions in the proper forum, forfeit the right to belatedly question long-standing revenue entries-especially when those entries flow from judicial determinations.

37. After careful consideration, it is evident that the powers of attorney produced by the petitioners were valid, registered, and covered the land in village Saidpur. The mutation in question was sanctioned based on these documents, which were duly verified before the transaction. The learned Member (Judicial-VIII) erred in overlooking the documentary evidence and instead relied on a misapprehension of facts. The application of the respondents was not only delayed beyond the statutory limitation period but also involved disputed questions of title and allegations of fraud, which fall outside the jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy. The superior courts have consistently held in PLD 1994 SC 336, 2004 SCMR 604, PLD 2020 Lahore 478, and 2014 CLC 1484 that such matters must be resolved by a civil court.

38. Furthermore, the principle of acquiescence and bar of limitation, as laid down in 2002 SCMR 1330, 2020 YLR 666, and 2011 SCMR 222, clearly apply. The respondents' silence for over a decade renders their belated challenge unsustainable. The learned ACR rightly considered all aspects and passed a well-reasoned order, while the order dated 26-10-2021 was both procedurally and substantively flawed.

39. It is settled law that revenue authorities are creatures of statute and are confined strictly to the jurisdiction vested in them under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. They are not courts of plenary jurisdiction and cannot venture into questions that involve adjudication of civil rights, title, or allegations of fraud, which require framing of issues and recording of evidence. As held in PLD 2011 SC 512 and PLD 2010 SC 1, the moment a party alleges fraud or disputes title based on civil documents, the matter transcends the limited summary jurisdiction of the revenue forum. The appropriate remedy lies in a civil sult, where the parties can adduce evidence and obtain a binding declaration. Permitting revenue officers to cancel or nullify mutations rooted in registered documents and civil court decrees would not only amount to exceeding jurisdiction but would render such instruments legally uncertain, defeating the principles of finality and sanctity attached to judicial pronouncements and registered acts under the Registration Act, 1908. It is all the more ironic and legally untenable that the respondents, despite alleging fraud and having knowledge of the decree as per their own assertions, knowingly and deliberately avoided pursuing the appellate and remedial forums available under the civil law.

40. The scope of review under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is narrow and exceptional, requiring a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, or a jurisdictional or legal misapprehension so fundamental as to vitiate the underlying order. The impugned order dated 29-01-2025, passed by the same Member (Judicial-VIII), departed from settled legal principles and disregarded material evidence that had formed the foundation of the earlier, well-reasoned order dated 29-07-2024. It proceeded on a misconstruction of both law and fact, failed to engage with the statutory limitations on revenue jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and overlooked the evidentiary value of registered documents and civil decrees duly produced on record. This Court, therefore, is not reappreciating evidence, but correcting a manifest legal error that strikes at the very root of judicial consistency and jurisdictional propriety. The review is thus not only maintainable, but imperative to uphold the integrity of adjudication within the bounds of lawful authority

it was compelled by the imperatives of justice, legality, and institutional discipline.

41. It is both ironic and perplexing that the respondents never availed themselves of the remedies available under the law by instituting any civil or criminal proceedings. No recourse was taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, nor was any action initiated under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

42. The learned counsel for the respondents has advanced weighty and well-reasoned arguments pertaining to the alleged commission of fraud, the inapplicability of limitation in the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the validity, scope, and competence conferred by the General Power of Attorney. However, the pivotal issue remains whether a revenue court is legally vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters.

43. The respondents rely upon purposive meaning and interpretation rather than the literal interpretation of Sections 166 and 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. Section 166 states: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decree or order made by any Revenue Officer, or errors therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer." A literal interpretation confines this provision strictly to minor, non-substantive corrections arising from inadvertent slips or computational errors. Even under a purposive construction, the legislative intent behind this section is to maintain procedural accuracy-not to confer authority upon revenue officers to review or annul entries based on civil court decrees. Likewise, Section 172(2)(vi), which allows "the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations," is designed for routine administrative corrections. Interpreted purposively, it does not empower revenue authorities to adjudicate complex disputes involving title, fraud, or the enforceability of decrees. Such matters lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

44. Therefore, the District Collector is empowered to effect corrections in the revenue record only where the illegality or irregularity is manifest, apparent on the face of the record, and already established through a recognized legal or investigative process. Where the matter necessitates a detailed appraisal of evidence for the determination of such questions particularly in matters involving allegations or commission of fraud, the validity or competence under a General Power of Attorney, the enforceability of a decree, the requirement of execution of a decree, or the applicability of limitation-the jurisdiction of not only the District Collector, but all revenue courts stand ousted. In such circumstances, revenue courts lack the lawful competence to venture into adjudication of such complex and inherently civil disputes. Therefore, the respondent has no lawful grounds to seek relief from the revenue courts in a matter which squarely falls within the domain of civil adjudication

45. In view of the foregoing, this petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29-01-2025, passed by the Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, is set aside. The order dated 29-07-2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore is upheld, and as a result, the earlier order dated 26-10-2021 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rahim Yar Khan, stands set aside. The respondents may seek appropriate relief before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. File be consigned to record room after completion. MQ/13/Rev Petition allowed.