1972 PLP 322 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of 5 kanals and 1 marlas of land, situated in revenue estate of village Nawan Rangpura, Tehsil and District Gujrat. This land was sold by Siraj Din and his two brothers Muhammad Din and Mehr Din on the 26th October 1960, in favour of Ali Ahmad and Khalil Ahmad. Muhammad Fazal son of Siraj Din filed a suit for pre‑emption. The matter was compromised. On the 8th December 1961, an amount of Rs. 7,000 was paid in Court and a consent decree was passed by the Administrative Civil Judge. Respondent No. 1 took no step for execution of decree. On the 5th February 1961, he moved an application before the Revenue Assistant for sanctioning of the mutation on the basis of the decree .of the civil Court. The Assistant Collector Grade II, sanctioned mutation No. 4209 on the 7th July 1967. The petitioners sought review of this order. The matter was reported to the Collector for permission to review. The Collector granted the requisite permission on the 27th July 1967. On the 7th August 1967, the Assistant Collector Grade II cancelled mutation No. 4209. This order was challenged in appeal and the Collector accepted it on the 23rd 'December 1967. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector Grade II for fresh decision. On the 2nd March 1968, the Assistant Collector Grade II, again sanctioned the mutation. On appeal, the Collector set aside this order on the 7th August 1968, on the ground that as the respondent bad not applied for the execution of the decree within the prescribed period of limitation, the decree had become ineffective. The matter was taken to the Additional Commissioner in appeal which was dismissed on the 3rd December 1968. A revision petition was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was dismissed on the 31st July 1959. The respondent challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 792 of 1970 which was accepted by Chauhan, J. on the 1st November 1971. He restored the order of the Assistant Collector Grader II dated the' 2nd March 1968. The matter was taken in L. P. A. No. 252 of 1971 which was dismissed in limine on the 6th April 1972. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition, Raja Said Akbar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that as the decree was not executed for six years, the Revenue authorities had no jurisdic tion to sanction mutation and the Member, Board of Revenue and the other authorities were perfectly justified in refusing to do so. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. A valid decree was passed in favour of respondent No.

1. He became the owner of the property on payment of the purchase price on the 26th October 1960, and became vested with right, interest and title in the land from that date. He was entitled to get the mutation effected on the basis of tile decree. Simply because it has barred by time, it has not lost its utility. In our opinion, the view of the High Court is correct that the Revenue authorities were under obligation to sanction mutation on the basis of the decree. It was next contended that the respondent has taken possession under a collusive decree from the tenants of the petitioners and that the order of the High Court is likely to affect the decision of the suit filed by the petitioners under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. The civil Court will decide the suit on its own merit. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.