P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(b) Mutation‑--Sanctioned on basis of statements of donor Not to be upset on allegations of fraud‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in civil Court. M. S. Baqar for Petitioner. Ghulam Muhammad, Special Attorney for Respondents. The facts of this revision petition are briefly as follows :‑‑ The two respondents Rashida Bibi and Shamim Akhtar are sisters of the petitioner Nur Ahmad. Mutation No. 127 Chak No. 59 Fateh, district Bahawalpur was entered purporting to be a gift of their entire share in the joint holding by the two sisters in favour of the two brothers, The parties appeared before the Revenue Officer on 24‑11‑1960, and made a statement in favour of the gift and also thumb marked, the mutation sheet. The mutation was sanctioned, but later on the sisters changed their mind and made an application to the Collector to the k effect that their statement had been obtained fraudulently. The mutation was reviewed under cover of certain instruc tions issued by the Board of Revenue which advised revenue officers that in such cases keeping in view the relationship of the parties and their sex, registered deeds should be insisted on. t These instructions are thus advisory in character. Any how the Collector allowed a review of the orders passed and the Assistant Collector thereupon rejected the mutation. An appeal preferred to the Collector was dismissed and the learned Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur has maintained the order of the Assistant Collector. A second revision has now been filed by Noor Muhammad, one of the donees. It is not denied before me that the two donors appeared before the Assistant Collector and made a statement supporting the gift. What has been urged is that their statements were obtained fraudulently, the gift therefore was invalid and the mutations should be set aside. It has been held consistently in numerous rulings that question of fraud urged by contending parties to a mutation proceeding, should not be gone into by the Revenue Officers in the course of these summary enquiries. If the parties appeared before him and admitted certain facts to have occurred the Revenue Officer should make entries in the record‑of‑rights in accordance with the facts so admitted as is laid down in section 37 of the Land Revenue Act. If it is subsequently pleaded by a party that the admission or the state ment made by him was obtained fraudulently the matter is for determination by a competent criminal or civil Court depending on whatever is the forum chosen by the aggrieved person. As already observed the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue are advisory in character and not mandatory and are meant to avoid subsequent complications so that litigation is reduced to the minimum. Any how in the case before me it is not contend ed that the donors did not appear before the Assistant Collector or that they did not make a statement in favour of the gift having been made by them; but what is pleaded is that their statement was obtained fraudulently. In these circumstances the proper course for the Revenue Officers was to let the mutation stand and leave the aggrieved parties to have recourse to a civil or criminal Court. I would accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the officers below and direct that the original orders of the Assistant Collector dated 24‑11‑1960, be restored. K. M. A. Revision accepted.