2011 PLP 1759 (YLR)

TARIQ JAVAID, J.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is owner in possession of the land measuring 7 Marlas. A decree for specific performance of contract in this regard was passed by the civil court on 21-7-1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since execution of decree for specific performance cannot be made; therefore, the respondents are not entering the mutation of the suit land in favour of the petitioner; hence this writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on PLD 1973 Lahore 614 and maintained that if the Revenue Authorities fail to give effect to a decree by sanctioning mutation, a direction can be given to them under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance has also been placed on Shara v. Member, Board of Revenue (2004 SCMR 117), Abdul Hameed and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (2005 SCMR 1617) and Allah Ditta v. Ghulam Muhammad and others (2008 SCMR 1021).

2. The proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable even under the judgments rendered by the honourable Supreme Court cited at the bar. Nor a petition for issue of writ to enforce the decree of a civil court is maintainable, for this court cannot be an executing court for the declaratory decrees passed by the Civil Courts. It is a well established principle of law that Revenue Courts/ authorities are bound to implement the declaratory judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts. The Institution of execution proceedings therefore has not been required under the law.

3. In Shara v. Member, Board of Revenue (2004 SCMR 117) it was held that mutation should be entered on the basis of a decree without resorting to the executing Court. Their lordships observed "the objection that mutation could only be sanctioned on the order of the Executing Court also does not have any legal basis. On the deposit of the pre-emption money as ordered in the pre-emption decree according to well settled law, the pre-emptor/decree holder was vested with full ownership rights of the land subject matter of the suit of pre-emption about which decree was passed, therefore, as regards sanction of mutation, the same could be made on the basis of decree without resorting to Executing Court under the revenue laws. Similarly, in Abdul Hameed and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (2005 SCMR 1617) the procedure for entry of mutation in case of declaratory decrees was discussed and it was observed as under:-- "The careful examination of the above subsections would show that it is essential for the Revenue Officer to inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutation except in case of decree of Court. The Revenue staff cannot go beyond the decree and is bound to give effect to it unless it is set aside or varied by competent Court and in case of failure, the concerned officials can be held guilty of contempt of Court which is gross misconduct. However, notwithstanding the requirement of law to give effect to the decree or order of the Court, the Revenue Staff while dealing with the valuable rights of people in the property and discharging their duty must be vigilant and must not be ignorant of the degree of care required to be taken in making entries in the Revenue Record, therefore, the omission on the part of Revenue official for not bringing the important and sensitive matters to the notice of senior officer and concerned Authorities before giving effect to an order or a decree of Court, if is not as such misconduct, it is definitely an act of negligence. The procedural omission may sometimes result in serious consequence, therefore, the Revenue Staff is required to discharge their duty with proper vigilance and care, in strict compliance of procedure provided in law, according to which on the report of change of ownership, the Patwari must enter it in the register of mutation and Girdawar is bound to attest by personal examination of the correctness of the entries made by the Patwari with his note in brief under his signatures and date. Similarly the Revenue Officer is required to carefully compare the entries and write a detailed order in the foil and a brief order in the counterfoil regarding the rejection or sanction of mutation."

4. In Allah Ditta v. Ghulam Muhammad and others (2008 SCMR 1021) attestation of mutation on the basis of consent decree was assailed. The honourable Supreme Court upheld the mutation and held that the Revenue authorities are bound to act under the decree and they had no power to ignore the same on any ground whatsoever. It was also observed that the Revenue authorities cannot sit over the judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court.

5. The judgments cited at the bar amply show that the Revenue authorities cannot deny to enter the mutation, under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, on the basis of a decree. The judgment and decree passed by the civil courts is binding on them and refusal to enter the mutation would be ipse dixit of the officials concerned.

6. With the above observation this petition is disposed of. A.R.K./A-7/L Petition disposed of.