P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Mutation

‑Question of fraud cannot be sifted by Revenue Officers during summary mutation proceedings‑Such matter should be left for competent civil or criminal Court. (b) Practice

‑Interference by Additional Commissioner for non‑observance of procedure not prescribed by Revenue Law or Rules or on grounds having no basis‑Not warranted. This revision petition has been preferred in respect of an oral sale of land measuring 12 acres situated in Chak No. 93/DB, District Bahawalpur effected by the respondent Abdullah Shah in favour of the petitioner Khushi Muhammad. The land was held as a Government grant by Abdullah Shah who had cleared off the entire instalments of Government dues on account of the purchase price etc. on 14‑2‑

56. The transaction of sale took place on 11‑10‑62 for a consideration of Rs. 14,

000. The parties appeared before the Assistant Collector, admitted the transaction of sale and transfer of possession. A mutation was accordingly sanctioned. An appeal was preferred to the Collector and various objections were raised e.g. that the transaction was attested in the neighbouring Chak and that the identity of parties was verified by the Lambardar of that Chak etc. but the Collector dismissed the appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered in revision as he thought that the transaction was a doubtful one. The arguments which he advanced in support of this decision were negative in character, e.g. that no' receipt for the money was executed; there was no reason why the money was not paid in the presence of the Assistant Collector; why did the Assistant Collector; verify whether the entire purchase price on account of the grant was paid to Government and he should have straightaway rejected the mutation. Even as regards the factum of possession which is admittedly with the petitioner he considered it of doubtful origin because to begin with a part of the land was held by the petitioner's brother as a tenant. The Additional Commissioner has not explained how the rest of the land passed into the possession of the petitioner. It has been held in numerous rulings that when a question of fraud is raised the matter general gets complicated in character which cannot be ordinarily sifted by Revenue Officers during the course of summary mutation proceedings and should be left for a competent civil or criminal Court to look into. It is not alleged that the Assistant Collector was a party, to the fraud and prima facie the attendant circumstances do not raise a suspicion of such a kind as to justify rejection of the mutation. Interference by the learned Additional Commissioner for non‑observance of procedure which the Revenue Law or Rules do not require, or grounds which do not find a basis in it, was not warranted. The revision petition is accordingly accepted and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector are restored. S. Q. Petition accepted.