P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 13th of April 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner Lahore, whereby he rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that, at the instance of Abdul Hakim, son of the respondent, a mutation of exchange was entered on 12‑6‑1963 and was sanctioned on 6‑7‑1963. According to the mutation entries, the petitioner was present and the parties were identified by Khushi Muhammad. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector on 9‑1‑1964, but it was rejected as time‑barred on the 14th of January 1964. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, but it was dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. The petitioner urged that he was never present at the time the mutation was sanctioned. This question is, however, not very important in view of the legal position. No mutation could be entered without the permission of the Consolidation officer and during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent was asked as to whether any sanction of the Consolidation Officer had been obtained. On the subsequent hearing, an attested copy of the application was produced before him. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application was anti‑dated. I had sent for the original application and found that the Consolidation Officer's order giving the sanction does not bear any date but the A. C. O. ordered on 26‑5‑1963 that mutation of exchange should be entered in the presence of the parties. The mutation was entered at the instance of Abdul Hakim. The Patwari's report does not disclose that any order of the Consolidation Officer had been obtained and shown to him. There is no mention about it in the body of the mutation itself nor did the A. C. O. who while sanctioning the mutation make any mention about it. At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I sent for the Register CD‑II. The attested copy of the application showed that it was given on the basis of an application entered at No.

225. An examination of the register also showed that, against No. 224, there was an addition made about the application for exchange. In order to get a satisfactory explanation about these two discrepancies, I sent for Ahmad Ali Clerk, who was shown to have issued copies of the application as well as the mutation. He has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation as to why the addition was made in Register CD‑II about the exchange application and why No. 225 was given on the back of the attested copy for exchange. The attested copy of the mutation showed that there were five pages but, if this is taken to be correct, the application would not be included therein. Again, it was found that Rs. 3 were charged as fee for giving the application. The attested copy of the application for exchange, however, showed that Rs. 5 were paid. No Court-fee stamp for this amount was available. The only explanation which Ahmad Ali could give was that it was mistake. I am, however, not satisfied with this explanation in the circumstances mentioned above. It is also noticed that, while the copy for the mutation was compared by one Bashir Ahmad, the copy of the application for exchange was compared by Ahmad Ali himself. It is contended that both these copies were given on the same date and it . is not clear why two persons should compare the two sets of copies. Ahmad Ali as well as the learned counsel for the respondent said that this was probably due to Ahmad Ali's being over‑worked. This explanation is not at all convincing. It is also significant that the mutation was allowed to have been sanctioned on 6‑7‑1963 by the A. C. O. and the same A. C. O. sanctioned the consolidation scheme on 25‑9‑1963. It is not clear why he could not give effect to the sanctioned mutation in his consolidation scheme. The question of the appeal of Ashfaq Ali being time‑barred was also raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner explained that Ashfaq Ali was not present at the time of the sanctioning of the mutation. He came to know about it only when the respondent went in appeal because the mutation of exchange had not been given effect to by the A. C. O. In these circumstances, I do not think this is a very important point. The determination of this case hinges on the issue as to whether the proper permission of the Consolidation Officer who was competent for allowing the sanctioning of the mutation was obtained or not. In these circumstances, mentioned above, I am not at all satisfied that this was the case. It is, therefore, clear that the sanctioning of the mutation was not legally correct. I, therefore, accept the revision and direct that mutation No. 1047 shall be considered as rejected and shall not be implemented. K. M. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.