1990 PLP 1985 (CLC)

(f) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.164‑‑‑Board of Revenue took exception to the conduct of Revenue Officer who having sanctioned mutation had admitted about misconduct/malpractice he had committed ‑during proceedings‑‑‑Such misconduct could not be ignored especially when the affectee involved was widow old lady‑‑‑Departmental action was ordered to be initiated against the concerned official. Malik Muhammad Hanif for Petitioner. Jahangir Irshad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1989. Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Lodhran had sanctioned Mutation No. 142 dated 16‑6‑1.984 in favour of respondents Murid Hussain etc. According to mutation deed Mst. Bakhtan Mai petitioner had sold her landed property measuring 82 kanals 9 marlas for a sum of Rs. 1,25,

000. After the mutation had been sanctioned the petitioner filed an appeal before the A.C./Collector, Lodhran, who set aside the mutation order as based on fraud and devoid of facts and also directed disciplinary action against Mr. Qadir Bakhsh Arbi, Naib‑Tehsildar/A.C. 11 for having indulged in malpractice. Thereafter the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who accepted the same. During the hearing of the appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) the parties were required to take oath on Holy Quran in the mosque, and based thereon the Additional Commissioner held that the sale money was Rs. 80,000 and hence he restored the mutation and directed the other party to approach the Civil Court, if advised so. Now aggrieved with that order Mst. Bakhtam Mai has come up in revision.

2. I have heard the parties and have gone through the record. The points for determination in this case are:‑‑ (a) Was the mutation sanctioned in violations of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act? (b) Effect of making oath during the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons). (c) Could the mutation be sanctioned even if full payment had not been made? (d) Effect of' accepting the time‑barred appeal by the Assistant Commissioner.

3. First, we proceed to consider if any violations of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act have been committed. Mst. Bakhtan Mai had made a statement that she had not appeared before any revenue officer in connection with the alleged sale. It is evident from the mutation deed that it was entered on 42‑6‑1984 and was attested by the Girdawar on the same day. The parties are alleged to have made their statements on 14‑6‑1984 and finally attestation was made on 16‑6‑1984. It does not bear any attestation from Mst. Bakhtan Mai. During the course of hearing of appeal by the A.C./Collector Mr. Qadir Bakhsh Arbi, Naib‑Tehsildar/A.C. II had made a statement that he remained at the headquarters from 12‑6‑1984 to 15‑6‑1984 and did not go on tour to Wahi Mullan Fazil where the land is situated. He had failed to explain how he had written the proceedings dated 14‑6‑1984, in which Mst. Bakhtan Mai had supposedly appeared, and admitted the sale. Thus the proceedings dated 14‑6‑1984 stand denied by A.C.

11. Again, during the proceedings of 14‑6‑1984 the statements of parties and witnesses are alleged to have been recorded, but those were not attested by any one of them. As such these proceedings, which are denied by the petitioner, are not only clearly in violation of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act but are fake also.

4. It is strange, during the hearing of the appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) the parties were required to take oath on Holy Ouran in mosque. It was done and the decision arrived at was that the sale money of Rs.80,000 had been paid instead of Rs.1,25,000 as mentioned in mutation deed. Firstly the proceedings of taking oath in the mosque were not strictly in accordance with section 10/11 of the Oaths Act. No commission had been formed and there are no statements of the parties or the affected persons available on record regarding what had happened and what had been stated exactly in the mosque. Since the proceedings were not in accordance with law so these are not binding.

5. Even if it be admitted that an amount of Rs.80,000 had been paid instead of Rs.1,25,000 even then it cannot be held that the sale had been completed. Since the vendor is denying the transaction and her acknowledgment does not appear on the mutation deed and payment of full amount is not proved, it was not open to. A.C. II to act upon it. Under these circumstances A.C. 11 had acted illegally in sanctioning the mutation.

6. Another plea taken by the petitioner, is that the Additional Commissioner had accepted the time‑barred appeal. No doubt it was barred by' time but the facts of the case, which have been narrated in the above paras, clearly indicate that even the respondent had not appeared before the A.C. II with clean hands. All the proceedings before the A.C. 11 were in violation of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act and dubious also. These were not D acknowledged by Mst. Bakhtan Mai who happens to be an old lady. So this plea does not help the respondents because in such cases not only the Commissioners or the Members, Board of Revenue can hear the revisions on the petition of any of the parties but can hear the revisions suo motu as well. In such like cases technicalities should not stand in the way of administration of justice. So for these reasons the delay (before the A.C.) is to be considered as condoned.

7. Having reached the conclusion that the proceedings before the A.C. II were dubious in nature, not acknowledged by the old lady, sale had not been completed and proceedings under Oaths Act were not strictly in accordance with law, I see no force in the contentions of the respondents. Therefore, the revision E petition is accepted and mutation No. 142, dated 16‑6‑1984 is set aside. The respondents can approach the Civil Court for specific performance, if advised so.

8. While parting with the file I must observe that the conduct of Mr_Qadir Bakhsh Arbi, Naib‑Tchsildar/A.C. 11 was not at all desirable. He himself admitted about the misconduct/malpractice he had committed during the F proceedings and the same cannot be ignored especially when the affectee involved is a widow old lady. Departmental action against him should be initiated immediately. A.A./361/9 Petition accepted.