1992 PLP 1609 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Decree of Civil Court based on fraud‑‑‑Revenue Authorities whether bound to implement such decree‑‑‑Respondents being not party to suit instituted by petitioners in Civil Court, decree passed by such Court was not binding on them‑‑‑Vendor was not owner of land when decree was passed in favour of petitioners as he had already sold his entire holding in favour of respondents‑‑‑Decree in question, having been obtained collusively, same did not bind Revenue Authorities, for fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings. Muhammad Munir Peracha for Petitioners. Muhammad Younis Bhatti for Respondents. The facts relevant for the disposal of this case arc that one Amanat Khan disposed of his entire land vide Mutations Nos.399 dated 22‑2‑1986 and 476 dated 28‑10‑1986. The said Amanat Khan also entered into agreement to sell 5 Kanals of land with the petitioners and in this regard decree from Civil Court was obtained on 23‑11‑1986 which was subsequently got implemented through Mutation No.639 dated 21‑4‑1988. The respondents applied for the review of this mutation. The District Collector after calling reports from the field staff accorded permission to review Mutation. No.639 on 9‑2‑1989. That order of District Collector was assailed by the petitioners in revision before the Additional Commissioner but to no avail. Hence this revision petition under section 104 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the mutation which was sanctioned in implementation of the decree of the Civil Court. Under section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Revenue Officer is bound to bring the record of rights up to date in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. The agreement to sell was earlier than the mutation in favour of the respondents and under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, decree for specific performance can be passed against the subsequent vender. If the petitioners were aggrieved of the decree of the Civil Court they should have taken steps to have it set aside. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and Mutation No.639 restored.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that Amanat Khan allegedly executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners on 29‑1‑1986 for 5 Kanals. The petitioners instituted the suit against Amanat Khan and a collusive decree was obtained without impleading the present respondents as party. On the basis of the aforesaid collusive decree Mutation No.639 was sanctioned. When the respondents came to know of the said mutation they applied for its review on the grounds that Amanat Khan was not owner of any property at the time of the said collusive decree dated 23‑11‑1980, the respondents were owner of the land in dispute and they were intentionally not impleaded as party. Hence the decree of the Civil Court is not binding against them as held in PLD 1962 (W.P.) B,I

1. The decree obtained on the basis of fraud by concealing the actual facts also does not bind the Revenue Authorities as held in 1985 SCMR

356. The respondents were bona fide purchasers and their rights were protected under the law and the learned counsel placed reliance on 1989 SCMR

949. Further that mere agreement to sell does not create any title according to 1189 SCMR

949. It is prayed that the revision may be dismissed. 4. 1 have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is evident that. respondents were not party to the suit preferred by the petitioners in the Civil Court for specific performance and hence that decree was not binding on the respondents. Amanat Khan was not owner of the land on 23‑11‑1986 when the decree was passed by the Civil Court. He had sold his entire holding in favour of Muhammad Aslam Khan etc., through Mutation No.399 dated 22‑2‑1986. The decree was obtained collusively and it does not bind the Revenue Authorities because fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings. The agreement to sell does not create any title or interest in or charge on contracted immovable property as held in 1989 SCMR

949. The whole proceedings surrounding Mutation No.639 smack of fraud and any benefit taken in fraud cannot be allowed to be retained as held in 1985 SCMR

356. The impugned orders therefore do not call for any interference having been made for valid reasons. The revision petition is dismissed with costs. A.A./482/R????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.