P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Mutation‑

Complicated question of law and fact‑To be decided by Civil Court‑Oral sale‑Identity of alleged seller in dispute Matter cannot be decided by Revenue Officer‑Purchaser may move Civil Court. The brief facts of this revision application which relates to Mutation No.

46. Village Mulapur, District Lahore as follows: The respondent Shafaatullah Khan is the allottee of the land in dispute. It is alleged on behalf of Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner that Shafaatullah Khan made a statement before the Revenue Authorities transferring the land in dispute which is 43 acres in area for a consideration of Rs. 15,000.00 in his i.e., the petitioner's favour. The parties appeared before the Revenue Officer, confirmed the oral sale and transfer of possession. A mutation was sanctioned accordingly. Shafaatullah Khan, however, preferred an appeal to the Collector and urged that he had not entered into any transaction of sale nor had he appeared before the village Patwari of the Assistant Collector. As a matter of fact Muhammad Abdullah held a special power of‑attorney on his behalf and contrived to produce some other person before the Assistant Collector to make a statement corroborating a factious sale resulting in a sanction of the mutation in dispute. The individual, Shafaatullah Khan, who appeared before the Collector was admitted by the village Patwari as well as the Lambardar to be different from the one who had appeared before the Assistant Collector. The fact is that Shafaatullah Khan though he is an allottee of land in this estate, does not reside in village Mulapur, but lives in District Muzaffargarh. For that reason neither the village Patwari nor the village Lambardar knew him personally and it was on the assurance of Muhammad Abdullah that they identified him as Shafaatullah Khan. The Collector accepted the appeal and the learned Commissioner dismissed the second appeal of Muhammad Abdullah who has now come up in revision. The main ground, that has been urged in the application is that Shafaatullah Khan who appeared before the Collector is not the real allottee of the area in question and is someone else i.e., other than the actual allottee. If this contention were correct the proper course for the petitioner would have been to produce the real allottee of the area before the Collector or the Commis sioner. He did not do so. Some application could at least have been made on behalf of this alleged person in support of the alleged transaction of sale. It may be mentioned that it was an oral sale and there is no receipt even to support payment of consideration. Mutations are summary proceedings and whenever a complicated issue of law or fact, as in this case, arises the proper remedy for the parties is to go to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. The contention of the petitioner is that he did not have an opportunity to produce evidence and cross‑examine the Patwari, the Lambardar or Shafaatullah Khan when they appeared before the Collector. This very fact supports the salutory procedure which has been followed by the Revenue Officers in leaving, complicated matters of fact law to the Civil Court. The point in dispute is‑the identity of Shafaatullah Khan and that can hardly be established before a Revenue Officer. I have no doubt that the decision arrived at by the Revenue Officers below in rejecting the mutation and in maintaining the status quo ante is correct and in keeping with the decisions of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue. It will be for Muhammad Abdullah who claims sale of the land in dispute in his favour to prove it before a Civil Court. The revision petition stands dismissed in limine. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.