2009 PLP 666 (YLR)

LIAQUAT ALI KHAN NIAZI, (MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)).

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 11-12-2006 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Rahimyar Khan whereby the revision petition of the present petitioners against the order of the District Officer (Revenue), Rahimyar Khan dated 20-9-2006 regarding: -- (i) Exchange Mutation No.554, dated 25-4-1996. (ii) Sale Mutation No. 555, dated 26-6-1996. (iii) Gift (Hiba) Mutation No.556, dated 3-12-1996. was dismissed in limine. Respondents in this case have not turned up despite issuance of registered notices and proclamation in daily Pakistan dated 6-10-2007. Therefore they were proceeded against ex parte on 29-1.0-2007.

2. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Mughal, Advocate represented the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were owners of the impugned land by virtue of mutations mentioned above and respondent No.1 was not party in the said mutations. Rights accrued in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the said mutations which have been cancelled by the orders of the District Officer (Revenue)., Rahimyar Khan after about ten years on the review application of respondent No. 1 and the revision before the lower Court was dismissed in limine. It was contended further that respondent No.1 had no locus standi to challenge the impugned mutations. Impugned mutations had already been incorporated in the perennial record -of-rights and had attained the status of finality and setting aside/modifying of the same was not within the competence of the revenue functionaries. It could only be done by the Civil Court. Respondent No.1 had not filed the application with clean hands. He was in the knowledge of the mutations from the very first day of sanctioning of the same and remained mum for a long period of more then eight years.

4. It was further contended that in the application respondent No.1 mentioned mutation 556, dated 3-12-1996. Actually there is not such mutation in favour of the petitioner and rather mutation 566 was sanctioned on 3-12-1996 on the basis of registered Hiba (Gift) and in pursuance of Mutation No.554. In the application it had been mentioned that oral Mutation No.510 had already been cancelled, which is not true because the same had already been resorted in consequence of the orders of the Civil Court. This fact was admitted by the revenue field staff in their report. The impugned orders are the result of mis reading and non-reading of the concerned record. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned orders may be set aside restoring impugned mutations in favour of the petitioners.

5. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record available on the file.

6. After hearing the petitioner and perusing the record, I have reached the conclusion that version of the petitioner is dependable and reliable.

7. Thus the revision petition is accepted and the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Rahimyar Khan dated 11-12-2006 and order 20-9-2006 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Rahimyar Khan are set aside. Thus the impugned mutations are restored in favour of the petitioners.

8. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Rahimyar Khan/ the revenue staff is directed to implement this order forthwith. H.B.T./11/Rev. Petition accepted.