P L D 1963 W P (Rev (PLP)
RAHIM GUL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1963 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RAHIM GUL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1963 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Mutation‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1963 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1963 W P (Rev (PLP) (RAHIM GUL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus FAZAL‑UR‑REHMAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dost Muhammad Kamil for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Shah Badshah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Proceedings summary in character‑Do not determine rights of parties‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
Entries of long standing in revenue record‑Not to be altered in summary manner by mutation. (b) Mutation
‑ Proceedings summary in character‑Do not determine rights of parties‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in Civil Court. Dost Muhammad Kamil for Petitioners. Muhammad Shah Badshah for Respondent. The facts of this revision petition may be briefly stated, while deciding an application for restitution of a mortgage under section 4 of the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act of 1950, the Collector, Peshawar remarked that certain entries which had been in existence since 1916‑17 were incorrect and the error may be rectified. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, proceeded accordingly and mutation of Sehat Indiraj No. 2997 village Akhera was sanctioned on 3‑6‑1959 without hearing the parties concerned. The Collector maintained this order in appeal but the learned Additional Commissioner interfered in revision and in my opinion quite correctly on the ground that entries of long, standing in revenue records like those under consideration which have continued through a settlement and consequently misl‑i-haqiat should not be altered in this summary manner of a correction mutation. He was justified in this view which is keeping with the rulings of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue. The question whether there is prima facie justification for a change in the entries is not under consideration but whether entries of long standing should be altered in the summary manner provided by mutation proceedings is a matter open to very serious objections. It may briefly be said that mutation proceedings are very summary in character. They do not determine the rights of parties. No plaints or written statements are filed, no issues are framed, no witnesses are examined and cross‑examined. It would thus be highly injudicious for Revenue Officers to take on the functions of Civil Courts without following the procedure laid down by the C. P. C. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by these entries, and prima facie there may be justification for his grievance, the proper remedy for him is to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction ands not have the matter determined by the summary proceedings of a mutation. In my opinion the decision arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite correct and is keeping with the practice of the Board of Revenue. The revision petition stands rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.