P L D 1965 W (PLP)

Syed Amjad Ali for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of March 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, who, while exercising powers of a Commissioner, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that Shabbir Muhammad respondent appointed one Gul Muhammad as his General Attorney under a written registered deed. On the strength of this power of attorney, Gul Muhammad mortgaged 200 kanals of land for Rs. 10,000 with Faiz Muhammad petitioner. Mutation No. 339 was entered on 5‑2‑1962. Before this mutation could be sanctioned, Gul Muhammad sold the equity of redemption in respect of the same land in favour of the petitioners, Muhammad Siddiq, Rahim Bux and Sher Muhammad and mutation No. 340 was entered on the 24th of February 1962. Both the mutations were 'put up to the Assistant Collectotor, 2nd Grade on 28‑2‑1962 and were sanctioned. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector who held that the general attorney had exceeded his powers and accepted the appeal. The petitioners went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who rejected it. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is quite clear that the learned Collector acted under a mis‑apprehension. In his order dated the 3'st of October 1962, he has clearly stated that the conditions laid down in the power of attorney did nor empower Gul Muhammad to sell or mortgage the property unless he was doing so with the written consent of the owner and for the sake of improvement of the property. I have examined the power of attorney and do not find any clause which would justify the presumption that Gul Muhammad had to get a written consent of the owner before he could sell or mortgage the property. It is true that all mortgages and sales were to be made with the object of improving the land. The learned counsel for the respondent wishes me to believe that the question as to whether the land was needed for the improvement of land or not was to be determined by the owner. I am afraid I do not find any support for this contention in the power of attorney itself. The words are quite clear that, in case of necessity, Gul Muhammad could sell oil mortgage the property. This necessity was with reference to the; development or improvement of the land but it was the attorney himself who had to decide whether there was such a necessity for which he needed funds. There is nothing in the power of attorney which would justify the presumption that, fir deciding this question, he has to get the oral or written consent of the owner or was bound to refer the matter to him at all. So far as the conduct of the revenue officers is concerned, I do not find anything which could be styled as fishy or suspicious. A presumption of the transaction being not bona fide can be raised only when there is no possible explanation forthcoming. If Gul *Muhammad found that, after raising Rs. 10,000 by the mortgage of the land in dispute he needed, more money, he could get addi tional funds by selling equity of redemption. There was lapse of sufficient time within which this necessity could be realized by Gul Muhammad. At any rate, the revenue officer was not to enter, into the question whether Gul Muhammad was acting within his powers and had exceeded them. He had to satisfy himself that the owner (seller) was duly represented by a person who had a registered power of attorney in his favour and that he did so is quite clear from the orders sanctioning the mutation. I also, find that against 25 acres of land, in all Rs. 25,000 were obtained by the attorney. This amount itself shows that the revenue officer would not be justified in suspecting the bana fide of the transaction. In these circumstances, I do not see that the learned Collector was justified in interfering or that the learned Additional Com missioner could upheld the order passed by the learned Collector. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that both mutations Nos. 339 and 340, as sanctioned by the revenue officer, shall stand. A. H. Petition accepted.