1990 PLP 1996 (CLC)

(iv) The period prescribed under law for seeking permission for review of a Mutation is 90 days whereas the application for review of Mutation was made after 14 years without any plausible explanation. (v) In the presence of Mehru vendor, his son Muhammad Boota was not competent to file an application for review. (vi) Mehru, vendor himself filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan. He was not competent to do so as he was not a party to the proceedings before the District Collector. The present respondents were impleaded as a party in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue); after the death of vendor. (vii) Mehru, vendor had sold his entire agricultural holding vide Mutation No.123. Therefore, he could not plead illegality of his own act. (viii) One of the vendees, Fateh Muhammad purchased 3/4th share of the land measuring 56 Kanais. He was already an owner in the village. The remaining 1/4th share of this very land was purchased by Muhammad Arshad, petitioner No.

2. There was no violation of MLR No. 64, as the transaction was not hit by Sub‑para. (4) of Para. 25 of MLR No.64 and Sub‑para. (4) of para. 24 of MLR No.115. (ix) Para 25 of MLR‑ 64 itself exempts land required for the purpose of building thereon from the operation of the said para. The Additional Commissioner while allowing the review of Mutation No. 123 after such a long time had not acted judicially as he had wrongly interpreted hair Mumkin Abadi by terming it a part of agricultural land. Reliance was placed on‑ , 1980 SCMR 314,1987 CLC 1061, 1988 CLC 1166,1989 SCMR 135, PLD 1989 SC 16, PLD 1989 FSC 80, 1989 CLC 1705, PLD 1975 Lah. 158, PLD 1984 Rev 30, PLD 1985 SC 153, PLD 1978 Rev 41, 1986 MLD 2391. Judgment dated 29‑6‑1986 in R.O.R. 1657/85 by Mr. Maqbul Ahmed Sheikh MBR(R). Judgment dated 26‑1‑1981 by Mr. S.M.Nasim, MBR(R) in ROR No.297 of 1979‑

80. The learned Counsel for the respondents raised the following points in rebuttal‑‑ (a) Mehru the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents owned land measuring 56K‑10M as per Jamabandi of 1966‑

67. He sold out 56.Kanals of land to the petitioners and retained 10 marlas of land with him. Therefore, there was a clear violation of MLR 64 and MLR 115. (b) The petitioners had played fraud with Mr. Ivlehru, depeased and his legal heirs, as no sale money was given to the respondents. (c) Since the sanction of Mutation was ab initio void, therefore, the point of limitation could not be taken into account. The Revenue Authority could take suo motu notice when the order itself was void. (d) The land comprising 10 marlas is also agricultural land and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan had rightly held that it could not be treated as village site. The case has been referred back to the Tehsildar/Revenue Officer and the petitioners are at liberty to explain their view point before him. Reliance was placed on‑ PLD 1975 Lah.158, PLD 1967 Pesh 328, PLD 1964 SC 97, PLD 1976 SC 37 and 1984 CLC 2782.

4. I have considered the arguments, advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The perusal of the Mutation in question indicates that Mehru, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents disposed of his entire agricultural holding, pertaining to Khata I No.37. Receipt of consideration money and change of possession were admitted by him in the presence of the petitioners and identfiers. Thus, after the fulfillment of the requirements of the contract by both the parties the petitioners became the owners of the disputed land. Apparently no violation of MLR No. 64 or MLR 115 was committed by Mchru or the petitioners, because the entire agricultural holding was sold out by Mehru. The record indicates that Muhammad Boota was not a party to the transaction as such he had no locus standi to challenge Mutation No. 123 through an application made before the District Collector, Vchari during the life time of his father, Mehru, vendor. The said application was filed after a lapse of 14 years. The District Collector had ruled out the contention of the said Muhammad Boota to the effect that 10 marlas of land on the basis of which an application for permission to review was made was residential in character. On the failure of Muhammad Boota, his father Mehru, vendor jumped into the field and filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multap who without adverting to the point whether Mehru was competent to challenge the order of the District Collector as he was not a party before him, had allowed the review of Mutation No. 123 on the flimsy ground that residential site measuring 10 marlas in Khata No. 151 was a part of agricultural holding of the vendor because it had been recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi in the Jamabandi of 1966

67. It is pertinent to point out that Chair Mumkin Abadi and Abadi Deh have the same meaning as far as MLR 64 and MLR 115 are concerned. As such this piece of land measuring 10 marlas is not covered by the definition of land as given in, para 2(5) of MLR 64 or Para 2(4) of MLR

115. He who seeks eguity must come with clean hands Muhammad Boota his father Mehru did not follow this well recognized dictum because they had an axe to grind The stand taken by Mehru in 1986 was at variance with that taken by him in 1970 Thus Mehru had taken two inconsistent stands. The nearer to the truth is the one which goes in favour of the opposite party. It will be unfair if a party to a transaction is allowed to plead illegality of his own act. The upshot of the above discussion is that the respondents‑ successors- in‑interest of the vendor are, trying to blackmail the petitioners to get benefit out of their own doing. The fact that the vendor had sold away his entire agricultural land to the petitioners stands established beyond any shadow of doubt. Under the circumstances the petitioners are lawful owners of that disputed land. There is no indication on record that the respondents were subjected to fraud by the petitioners. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners have been made to suffer for no fault of their own. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan did not appreciate the facts of the case and the law on the point while passing the impugned order. He was not justified in allowing the review of Mutation No.

123. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Additional Commissioner, being bad in law, is hereby set aside. AA./363/R Revision accepted