P L D (Rev (PLP)

Representation

• Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Petitioner.
• Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, for Respondents.
• NASIR AHMAD, F. C.‑The facts of this case have been given in my order dated 9th June, 1955, in Case No. 15 of 1954‑55 Mst. Anis Zohra v. Mst. Wazir Begum and another and need not be recapitulated in detail: Briefly speaking it may be mentioned that in two of the three mutations relating to the inheritance of the deceased proprietor of the property in dispute, Anis Zohra the daughter of a pre‑deceased son was not given notice nor were the mutation proceedings taken up on the spot. In the third mutation proceedings an objection was raised on her behalf but the Revenue Officer instead of applying his mind to the fact before him followed the decisions in the two earlier proceedings. It is now urged on behalf of Mst: Anis Zohra that the Financial Commissioner should interfere in revision in exercise of his powers under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act. A plea is taken up following Fateh Khan and others v. Mst. Hayat Bibi (1931 L L T 44), that the Financial Commissioner should only exercise these powers when there is a real danger of a serious failure of justice. Ordinarily he should adhere to the provisions of section 115 of the Civil P. C. leaving the aggrieved party to seek his remedy in a Civil Court. This ruling is clearly distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case. What influenced Miles Irving F. C. in Fateh Khan v. Hayat Bibi was the fact that the case between the parties was essentially of a judicial nature relating to the application of Customary Law and no irregularity or error of jurisdiction was alleged. As already observed the two earlier mutation proceedings cases were decided in an irregular manner at a considerable distance from the estates to which they related and without notice to the parties concerned. In the third mutation which was taken un in the village concerned, it is significant that the revenue subordinates did not even mention the name of Mst: Anis Zohra in the pedigree‑table included in the remarks column. Besides in Fateh Khan and others v. Mst. Hayat Bibi the decision had been arrived at by the Revenue Officers on merits. My attention has been drawn to two subsequent rulings Khushal Das and another v. Kesar Singh etc. (1932 L L T 18) which was followed in Yousaf Khan v. Karam Khan (1934 L L T 37.) and in both of these a clearly different view from the one advocated has been taken. The earlier of these two rulings is by Miles Irving, F. C: himself in which he considered that the Financial commissioner had to interfere in revision to put right the obvious disregarded of rules relating to mutation pro ceedings. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that this is a fit case for interference as there has been a disregard of rules of procedure resulting in a clear miscarriage of justice. The revision petition is accordingly accepted and the proceedings remanded to, the Assistant Collector to be taken up in .the estates concerned with due notice to the parties. A fresh decision should then be made on merits in all the three mutations.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree