2014 PLP 569 (CLC)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, (MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

This review petition has been filed against order dated 15-11-2011, passed by this court, whereby revision petition of the present respondent was accepted.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Patris Masih son of Khan Yousaf predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners purchased the land measuring 2 Kanals, 2 Marlas and 5 Sarsahi bearing Khewat No.425, Khatuni No.543, Khasra No.24/5 situated in Chak No.88/10-R, Khanewal city through registered Sale-deeds Nos.1077 and 1078, dated 7-8-1985 and was incorporated in the Revenue Record through Mutation Nos.2194 and 2195, dated 29-10-1986 from his own pocket. However, after the death of said Pitras Masih, inheritance Mutation No.7375, dated 10-1-2004 was sanctioned. The respondents filed a civil suit challenging the Mutation No.7375. The respondents also filed a time-barred appeal before the learned District Officer (Revenue) against the said mutation. The learned District Officer (Revenue), without appreciation of contention of the petitioner accepted the time-barred appeal vide order dated 24-8-2007 and ordered for review of the Mutation No.7375. That order was challenged by the petitioners before learned Member (Judicial-III) BOR which was decided vide order dated 15-11-2011. The impugned order is illegal, void and ab initio, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Member did not consult the record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is whimsical, arbitrary and unlawful. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the review petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the scope of review is very limited. The order can only be reviewed, if new facts or grounds which were not available at the time of passing of the impugned order have emerged or mistake apparent on the face of record. But in the instant review petition neither new facts have been brought on record nor any mistake is apparent on the face of record, which calls for review of the earlier order. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the order dated 15-11-2011, which was passed alter hearing contention of the parties and consultation of the record. The points/grounds raised by the petitioner in the revision petition were well taken and addressed in the impugned order. Finally it was prayed that the review petition may be accepted.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, have also glanced through record available in the case file and written arguments submitted by the parties. Brief of the matter is that Patris Masih son of Khan Yousaf predecessor-in-interest of present petitioners purchased the land measuring 2 Kanals, 2 Marlas and 5 Sarsahi bearing Khewat No.425, Khatuni No.543, Khasra No.24/51, situated in Chak No.88/10-R, Khanewal city through registered Sale-deeds Nos.1077 and 1078, dated 7-8-1985. The same was incorporated in the Revenue Record through Mutation Nos.2194 and 2195, dated 29-10-1986. After the death of said Pitras Masih, inheritance Mutation No.7375, dated 10-1-2004. The contention of the respondents is that Patris Masih was Bishop of Multan and impugned property was actually purchased for construction of Girls Hostel for Society of Saint Catherince of Salina Congeration of School Missionaries in Pakistan. Being aggrieved by the mutation pertaining to impugned land in favour of successors of said Bishop, the respondents filed a civil suit challenging the Mutation No.7375. Subsequently withdrew the same and filed an appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue), against the said mutation. The appeal was accepted vide order dated 24-8-2007. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, which was dismissed vide order dated 15-12-2009. The operative para is as under:

This order was challenged by the petitioners before learned Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, which was decided vide order dated 15-11-2011. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:

"I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel of the parties and have also gone through record of the case including the impugned orders. From perusal of the record, it is evident that District Officer (Revenue) vide his order dated 24-8-2007 granted permission to Review Mutation No.7355 and the same order has been upheld by Executive District Officer (Revenue). The petitioners argue that while granting permission to review, they were not heard which is apparently true. The order shows that petitioner who was respondent before District Officer (Revenue) was issued registered notice and ex parte, proceeding were initiated against him. Thereafter AC-II was yet to implement the order of District Officer (Revenue) which in the meanwhile was agitated before Executive District Officer (Revenue) who upheld the order of District Officer (Revenue). The question of purchase of land in the name of society has been missed which the respondent says that Patras Yousaf had purchased for society and due to non-registration of society, it was mutated in the name of Patras Yousaf. Raising of the girl's hostel is question of fact which is to be proved before competent forum. Since the order of review has not yet been implemented, therefore, it is directed that Tehsildar shall visit the site in person, call both the parties and then decide the matter in open assembly and whatever is decided, the same shall be recorded on mutation in the form of footnote." Against the order, the petitioners filed the instant review petition on 9-4-2012. Whereas in pursuance of impugned order of this court dated 15-11-2011, the Tehsildar passed following order:

From the above it becomes clear that the impugned order has already been complied with and Revenue Officer vide footnote dated 22-3-2012 has confirmed the contention of the respondents, which is quite in line with the orders of learned lower forums, as well. So, it is established that impugned order is quite lawful and rightly been passed, which needs no interference. Hence, the review petition is dismissed and order of this court dated 15-11-2011 is reiterated. MH/1/Rev. Petition dismissed.