1994 PLP 1454 (SCMR)
SARDAR and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1454 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1454 (SCMR)?
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 1994 PLP 1454 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1454 (SCMR) (SARDAR and 5 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus RASHID AHMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Chauhan, Advocate instructed Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑4‑1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 3108‑Misc. of 1991). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 53 & 172‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑‑Rectification of revenue record‑‑‑Mutation entries do not establish title which have to be independently proved‑‑‑Revenue Authorities while giving effect to registered deed and the compromise in Court, had gone beyond the deed and the compromise which had to be corrected and was corrected by the order of Board of Revenue‑‑Steps taken to correct the revenue record could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Petitioners could have approached Civil Court if they considered their title had come under cloud‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment .of Lahore High Court, dated 24‑4‑1991 whereby a Constitution petition filed by them was dismissed, in limine.
2. Ghulam Muhammad was the original owner of the land measuring 50 Kanals 19 Marlas who gifted away his entire land to his sister. The gift was challenged. A compromise was however, reached on 24‑1‑1949 whereby Ghulam Muhammad and Mst. Bibi (the sister), satisfied themselves with half the property in dispute. This compromise decree was not, however, incorporated in the revenue record. Mst. Bibi sold her share out of the property in dispute in favour of the petitioners by a registered deed. In giving effect to it in the revenue record, the entire 50 Kanals 19 Marlas of land was shown as having been alienated in favour of the petitioners. On an application made by the respondents, the revenue authorities proceeded to correct the mutation and to bring it in accord with the registered deed and the compromise in Court. The Member, Board of Revenue allowed the correction. A writ petition challenging the action of the Member, Board of Revenue was instituted which has been dismissed in limine.
3. The petitioners' case against the' compromise decree is that it remained unexecuted and against the registered deed is that the mutation was given effect to notwithstanding that registered deed.
4. It is established law that mutation entries do not establish title which had to be independently proved. In this case, the mistake is obvious in giving effect to registered deed. The revenue authorities had gone beyond it. The steps taken to correct the mistake cannot be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction. If the petitioners consider that their title in the land has come under cloud, they have a remedy to resort to Courts of pleanary jurisdiction for enforcement of their rights.
5. No case is made out for interference. hence leave to appeal is refused. AA./S‑837/S Leave refused.