P L D 1962 W (PLP)

Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner. These are two Revision Applications No. 195 and 230 of 1961‑

62. The brief facts are as follows: ‑ The respondent Mukhtiar Begum was married to Bashir Ahmad in 1956 and her father‑in‑law gifted her the landed property in dispute at the time of her marriage. Mutations were duly sanctioned and entries made in the revenue records accordingly. Subsequently a son was born to Mukhtiar Begum and the case of the petitioner is that she gifted away the property which she had received at the time of her marriage to her newly born son. Mutations were again entered accordingly and sanctioned. After the lapse of the period laid down in section 15 of the Land Revenue Act Mst. Mukhtiar Begum applied for a review of these mutations and the ground urged by her was that she was not a party to them nor had she appeared before the Revenue Officer ; thus the entire proceedings were a fraud and a nullity. An enquiry was held by the Assistant Collector concerned and he made a report to the Collector in favour of a review of these mutations. The Collector passed a very laconic order which runs as follows: ‑ "As proposed at "A" report on both the mutations for review should be written so that necessary orders may be passed on it." A revision was preferred to the learned Additional Commissioner who after going into the facts came to the conclusion that the proper course for the petitioner was to wait till the decision on the two reopened mutations had been arrived at and then pursue the ordinary remedy of appeal or revision as the case may be. A second revision petition has been preferred against this order. The grounds that have been taken up before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner are three. Firstly, that the application for a review should not have been entertained after a lapse of 90 days as laid down in proviso (b) to section 15 of the Land Revenue Act. This proviso, however, contains an important exception which is that the application may be entertained, if "the applicant satisfies the officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period". On going through the report of the enquiry officer I have no doubt that the respondent Mukhtiar Begum was able to satisfy this requirement of the law. She is a purdah observing lady and at the time when the mutations were sanctioned she was expecting another child and was living with her father. Besides the method of entering up the mutations and their place of disposal which I will deal with later also cast considerable suspicion on the entire proceedings. The second point that has been argued is that a review should not ordinarily be allowed unless the provision of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. has been complied with. To support this contention reliance is placed on an earlier judgment of mine, Gul Ahmed v. Nizam Din (P L D 1956 W P (Rev.) 13). That judgment referred to a review of an order passed by me as Financial Commissioner and in the absence of any specific provisions in the Revenue Law. I had observed that in any application for review the provisions contained in the ordinary Civil Law of the land i.e. the Civil Procedure Code should guide the revenue officers. As far as the Board of Revenue is concerned, now Act XI of 1957, definitely clears the position and lays down the conditions under which a review is tenable by a Member of the Board. It may still be urged that there is no provision to guide the subordinate officers or Courts and the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1 would still be a good guide in this behalf. The provisions of that order, however, are very extensive and do not restrict review proceedings merely to an error or omission patent on the face of record or new material or evidence having become available which at that time was not in the possession of the party even after the exercise of due diligence. The Rule further permits a review on the ground of "any other sufficient reason" so that in the circum stances of this case when the officer who decided that mutation himself slated that a burqa clad woman was produced before him whom nobody identified as Mumtaz Begum and about whose identity he was not certain himself this condition is amply satisfied. It may also be mentioned that he decided these mutations which were entered by the Patwari verified by the Field Kanungo and finally decided by the Revenue Officer, the same day at a place other than the estate or the village where the land is situated are additional circumstances to support my view. The last point that has been argued before me is that a question of fraud or misrepresentation has been raised before the Revenue Officers and it has been the consistent policy of the Financial Commissioners and the Members, Board of Revenue to leave such matters for determination by the Civil Courts. This is a proposition of law with which I find myself in agreement but as I have already observed that the circumstances of the case are peculiar in the sense that the presiding officer himself who decided the mutation says that he cannot vouch safe for the identity of the burqah clad woman who was produced before him. In my opinion, this is a fit case in which the onus should be on the other party to go to the Civil Court. I would for the above reasons decline to interfere with the orders passed and reject both the revision petitions. K. M. A. Petition rejected.