1994 PLP 148 (CLC)

Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Petitioner. This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 7‑11‑1991 of the respondent Member, Board of Revenue rejecting his revision petition No.23 of 1987 regarding Mutation No.25 allegedly entered in his favour on 14‑4‑1966.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is allegedly vendee of 51 KanaLs, 8 Marlas in Chak No.53/1, Tarka Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad for a sum of Rs.13,224 and Mutation No.25, dated 14‑10‑1966 was attested by the Revenue Officer. As Pert Patwar and Pert Sarkar of Mutation No.25 was not available, he applied for the preparation of the duplicate record and A.C./Collector recommended accordingly by his order dated 5‑7‑1986 and duplicate mutation was entered in the name of the petitioner on 19‑7‑1986. The respondent challenged this order and the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Faisalabad accepted the appeal setting aside the mutation against which revision was filed and the same was rejected by order dated 7‑11‑1991 of the Member, Board of Revenue which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and it emerges from the record that the petitioner also filed a civil suit asserting his rights on the basis of Mutation No.25 and after framing issues the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 21‑2‑1981 and appeal by the petitioner was also rejected by the learned District Judge, Faisalabad on 18‑2‑1982. It is stated by the. petitioner that this order was challenged in this Court but the order of the District Judge was affirmed. For reasons best known to the petitioner he has not filed a copy of this order.

4. The learned respondent Member, Board of Revenue has extensively dealt with the case of the petitioner and positively concluded that the petitioner has already lost his remedy in the Civil Court and orders thereof are binding on the Revenue Authorities and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is observed that "it is incumbent upon revenue authorities in such cases to incorporate judgments of the Civil Court in the record and not to reopen the case thereafter on one pretext or the other".

5. Reliance is placed on para. 732 of the Land Record Manual to show that the permission in this case was rightly accorded by the Collector for the preparation of the duplicate mutation and, therefore, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and that of the Member, Board of Revenue are unsustainable in the eye of law. Whatever may be the case the rights of the petitioner have already been determined as to the disputed mutation in the civil suit which has not only been dismissed by the Civil Courts A but their judgments affirmed by this Court as well. In view of the above no case has been made out for the interference in the two impugned orders and, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./R‑105/L Petition dismissed.