1996 PLP 256 (MLD)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOI.AN BIBI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 256 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Said Member (Judicial‑I) |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOI.AN BIBI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 256 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 256 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Akhtar Said Member (Judicial‑I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 256 (MLD) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASOOI.AN BIBI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mansoor Ali for Petitioner.
- Ch. Atta Ullah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.42 & 164‑‑‑Cancellation of mutation by Revenue Officials ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Where fraud had been committed by one party against another, defrauded party would have to go to Civil Court for relief‑‑‑Where, however, fraud had been committed by any party in collusion with Revenue Officials, Revenue Courts would have jurisdiction to cancel/set aside such mutation‑‑‑Such being the case mutation had been rightly cancelled by Revenue Officials.‑‑ [Jurisdiction]
Judgment & Decree
3. Mutation No.686,was ordered to be reviewed by the District Collector on 2‑3‑1992. It was reviewed and cancelled by the A Class Grade/Tehsildar on 28‑4‑1993.
4. The appeal of the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector was turned down by him on 30‑5‑1993 and his revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 11‑10‑1993. These are the impugned orders before the present Court.
5. I will decide this case on the following arguments: (i) While attesting Mutation No. 686 the Revenue Officer had obtained the thumb‑impression of Wali Din Lambardar of the village, but significantly the order itself is silent about his presence. In view of the importance of the presence of the Lambardar under section 42, subsection (7) this omission is an indication of collusion between the petitioner and the Revenue Officer/Revenue Staff. (ii) Wali Din Lambardar in his statement has denied his presence at the time of attestation of Mutation No. 686. (iii) As regards his thumb‑impression Wali Din has pleaded his old age, illiteracy and short sightness which enabled the Revenue Officer to play this fraud. (iv) The presence of one Muhammad Jamil, of Kamoki has been mentioned in the order of the Revenue Officer attesting the mutation, but a
of a different estate was not required to be present while` attesting the mutation relating to this village. This also indicates the collusion and fraud to which the Revenue Officials were party. (v) Both the petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and the Pattidar Ghulam Muhammad were summoned, but they declined to accept the notices for the proceedings that resulted in the cancellation of Mutation No.686 on 28‑4‑1993. . (vi) The mutation of inheritance No.685 was entered on 8‑8‑1991, its
was done on 13‑8‑1991 by surprisingly its date of attestation is 12‑8‑1991. In other words the
was done a day after the sanction of the mutation. This also shows not only indecent but illegal haste on the part of the Revenue Officials to sanction the Mutation No. 685 before sanctioning Mutation No. 686. (vii) It is true that when there is a fraud committed by one party against another the matter is for the Civil Courts to decide, but when a fraud has been committed against the Revenue Officials, Revenue Courts can give relief. In the present case a fraud has been committed against the respondent both by the petitioner and the Revenue Officials together. When Revenue Officials are in collusion with a member of the public in defrauding someone, it would be unfair for superior Revenue Courts to refrain from granting relief, and to ask the aggrieved party to go to a Civil Court.
6. In view of the above arguments I find no force in the revision petition. I would dismiss it. AA./27/Rev. Petition rejected.