1992 PLP 1600 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 104‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Revision was found to be time‑barred by sixteen (16) days according to initial calculations‑‑‑Revision on re‑calculation wits found to be, time‑barred by two days‑‑‑No application for condonation of delay having been tiled, revision was dismissed., as time barred. Petitioner No.1 in person. Muhammad lqbal Ghous for Respondents. The facts giving rise to this case according to the petitioners are that Usman Ghani respondent No.l entered into contract of sale of property with the petitioners. Mutation No.168 for 27 Kanals 11 Marlas and‑ Mutation No.169 for 45 Kanals were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for consideration amount of Rs.11,000 and 35,W) respectively. Later on, the respondents applied for the review of the said mutations on the basis of fraud but Settlement officer/Collector vide his order dated 26‑6‑1986 declined to grant such permission. However, on a revision petition, the Additional Commissioner granted the permission for review of the said mutations on 1‑2‑1987 (AC‑II while complying with the said order cancelled those mutations on 2‑4‑1987). Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his written arguments contended that Usman Ghani respondent was appointed as a lawful attorney by other respondents for the sale of the agricultural land which was sold to the petitioners on payment of Rs.35,000 and Rs.11,

000. Mutation Nos.168 and 169 were entered and attested on 8‑9‑1983. The respondents applied for review of the mutations and their application was rejected by the Settlement Officer/Collector vide his order dated 26‑6‑1986. The permission to review was granted by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), D.G. Khan accepting the respondents' revision and accordingly these mutations were cancelled. The learned counsel further maintained that no revision or appeal was competent against the Collector's order as held in Revenue Rulings 363(a) and 391 (a) and PLD 1982 (Rev.)

8. There was also a delay of three years and the limitation prescribed in law for review is only 90 days. There was no application for condonation of delay. If the respondents had taken the plea that a fraud was practiced upon them, then the right course of action for them was to‑go to the Civil Court, as held in several rulings. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had over passed the limits of his jurisdiction when he himself took upon the duty of the Revenue Officer and‑proceeded to discuss the merits of the case without any deep probe or inquiry. The impugned order was in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and hence it was liable to be set aside. It was prayed that the revision petition maybe accepted.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, in the course of the arguments, maintained that the general power of attorney in the name of Usman Ghani was forged and a case against the concerned Revenue Officials/Officers had been registered by the Anti‑Corruption Staff on 28‑1‑1986. Muhammad Bashir, one of the respondents, had died on 2‑1‑1968 whereas he was shown to be alive in 1983, while forging power of attorney. The respondents had come to know of this fact in 1986 and applied to the Settlement Officer/Collector for reviewing the mutations, but the S.O./Collector had failed to exercise his jurisdiction and therefore the respondents were constrained to file a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Dera Ghazi Khan, who appreciating the facts accepted and ordered the review of mutation. 4. 1 have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The order of the Collector dated 26‑6‑1986 is a non‑speaking order and he merely agreed with the short report of the E.A.S.O. that the petition should not be decided till the decision of the Anti‑Corruption case. The parties were not heard. However, on the application of the respondents, the Collector heard them on 26i‑8‑1981 but again did not decide the case on merits on the ground (flat the Anti‑Corruption case was still pending and the respondents had also filed a revision before the: Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The respondents‑applicants were directed to file an appeal challenging the mutations under the law. It is obvious that the learned Collector had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him on both these occasions without any cogent reasons. It was his duty under the law to take corrective action to redress the grievance of the petitioners and no exception could be taken to the order of the learned Additional Commissioner on this point. As to the competency of their revision before him, section if of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act is very clear on this score and need not further he elaborated. The authorities quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicah1c because in the instant case a revision was filed against the order of the Collector refusing to review the mutations, whereas the PLD 1982 Rev. 8, relates to appeal or revision against the order of Collector according permission to review it mutation. As regards the question of fraud, it has been held in this authority that review is not competent where there is no error or omission apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case the fraud is not of an ordinary nature; fraud has inter alia been alleged against the Revenue Officials and the Revenue Officers who entered and attested the mutations and an Anti‑Corruption case was also registered against them. In these peculiar circumstances, the higher officers in the Revenue hierarchy were duty bound to take cognizance of the situation and take measures to rectify the same as they would be failing in their duty if they do not take corrective action where their lower revenue functionaries arc alleged to be perpetrators of a fraud played upon a right‑holder. I feel that the concerned revenue functionaries should also he brought to book and departmental action should also be taken against them if they arc found guilty as alleged by respondents. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, D.Ci. Khan shall take action accordingly now if not already done. S. The revision was found to be time‑barred by 16 days according to initial calculations. Subsequently on the prayer of the learned counsel for petitioners recalculation of the period of limitation was done and the revision petition was found to he time‑barred by two days. No application for condonation of delay has been made by the petitioners. Thus the revision petition is liable to dismissal as time‑barred. The upshot of the discussion is that the revision petition is devoid of merits and is time‑barred. Consequently it is dismissed as such.

7. The order was reserved and it shall be communicated to the parties. A.A./483/R Revision dismissed.