1992 PLP 851 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1991. The petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration of land measuring 18 Kanals 10 Marlas comprising Khasras Nos.1751/2, 1752, 1753/1 in village Harbanspura, Tehsil Cantonment, District Lahore from its allottee Syed Mustafa Haider son of Syed Zawar Haider through a registered deed of sale dated 18th August, 1985.

2. After having purchased the land the petitioner approached the Tehsildar Cantt, Lahore for giving effect to the sale in the Revenue record but as the respondents were not willing to do so, the petitioner filed a suit against the Provincial Government and the Collector, Lahore for a declaration and mandatory injunction directing the respondents to make entries in the Register Haqdaran with regard to the transfer in favour of the original allottees and its subsequent sale in favour of the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte against the respondents by the Civil Court on 28th January, 1987.

3. On the strength of the decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner applied to the Tehsildar for necessary correction in the Revenue record. This application was allowed by the Assistant Collector II on 29th June, 1987 and Mutation No.5444 was attested in favour of the petitioner. It however, appears that the mutation was subsequently reviewed under the orders of the Collector on 5th of August, 1989. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.162‑R of 1989 which was accepted and the Collector was directed to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner. The Collector once again ordered the cancellation of the mutation vide his order dated 20th March, 1991. The petitioner went in appeal but the same was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Lahore on 28th April, 1991. In this Constitutional petition it has been prayed that the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 may be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and they be directed to act in accordance with the judgment and decree of the Civil Court.

4. On 14‑9‑1991 Mr. Hamid Ali Mirza, Adv. appeared on behalf of the respondent and requested for an adjournment. The case was accordingly adjourned. The case was again taken up for hearing on 3rd of November, 1991 when another request for adjournment was made by the learned counsel for the respondents and the case was ordered to be heard on 5th of November,. 1991. To day no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and they have been proceeded against ex parte.

5. According to the case of the petitioner he is a bona fide purchaser for value of the land from its transferee and his title stands established by a decree of the Civil Court passed in a suit in which the respondents were parties. Neither any written statement has been filed nor any one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to deny this assertion.

6. From a perusal of the orders of the respondents it is to be noticed that the respondents have acted on the basis that the transfer in favour of the original allottee was fraudulent and therefore, the petitioner had no title to the property. However, while arriving at this conclusion the respondents have ignored the decree of the Civil Court and have clearly acted in derogation thereof. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondents despite being aware of the decree have taken any action to have it set aside. In these circumstances when the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the decree, it was clearly not open to the Collector to review it and thereby, nullify the effect of the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑166/L Petition allowed.