P L D (PLP)

Mutation‑

Compromise decree passed in pre‑emption suit -Party in possession praying for entering mutation after 12 years from date of decree‑Held, that person in possession could apply for mutation at any time, as question of decree having became time -barred does not arise. P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1083 held not applicable. The brief facts of this case are that the land in dispute was sold by certain persons to the petitioners. The respondent brought a suit for pre‑emption and a compromise decree was passed on 29‑3‑1947 in respect of 1/5th of the land which was duly specified by mates and bounds. In accordance with this compromise the respondents deposited Rs. 7,200.00 in the Civil Court and the amount as agreed upon was withdrawn by the petitioners a day later. In 1959 i.e. more than 12 years after wards the respondents produced a copy of the decree before the Revenue Authorities and requested that a mutation be entered and attested accordingly. The Assistant Collector, however, held that as a period of 12 years had expired from the date of the decree, it was no longer operative and rejected the mutation. The Collector upheld this decision in appeal by the respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered on the ground that the decree had already been acted upon as the land in respect of which it was passed was already with the respondents and the entries in the record showed that it was held by them at land revenue rates without payment of any rent to the petitioners. A second revision has been filed, against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner by the petitioners. The sole ground that has been urged before me is that the decree had become time‑barred and following Sir Henry Craik's ruling in Mangal Singh v. Milkha Singh (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1083). It was not a decree which was binding on the parties within the meaning of section 37 (b) of the Land Revenue Act. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that if the terms of the compromise effected between the parties in the Civil Court on 29‑3‑1957 are gone into it would be apparent that in accordance with this compromise, possession had already been transferred and land taken over by the respondents as owners in lieu of which they deposited the amount of Rs.7,200 in favour of the petitioners who withdrew it from Court on 3‑4‑1947. There was thus no reason or cause of action left for the respondents to take out execution proceeding as they had already entered into possession of the land as full owners as a result of the compromise. In Mangal Singh v. Milkha Singh the fact of possession was not established, this the decree had not been executed. It was the party out possession who had sought a change in the revenue records accordance with a decree more than 12 years old. The facts of this case are obviously different and easily distinguishable. I would for the above reasons agree with the view which has been taken by the learned Additional Commissioner and dismiss the revision petition. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.