P L D 2008 Lahore 337 (PLP)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

The petitioner was awarded a contract for collection of tax, levied through Local Government (Tax on Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 2001; being the highest bidder, pursuant to an auction. The petitioner paid the bid money in the sum of Rs.93,00,000 for the period commencing 1-7-2007 to 30-6-2008. A formal agreement to this effect was executed inter se the petitioner and respondent No.1, after complying with all codal and procedural formalities. The spirit of the agreement enunciated that petitioner was entitled to collect tax on immovable property transferred either by a registered instrument or any other mode, as specified in Rule 4 of the said rules. Execution of sale-deed is possible only if Fard, of land, subject-matter of the deed, is attached, otherwise registration of a proper sale-deed is not possible. Respondent No.2 passed an order, on, 1-10-2007, directing respondent No. 3 that no Fard be issued for registering a sale-deed by the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar, and in case it is issued, no mutation be sanctioned to give it effect. The stated action not only, is a source of concern for the petitioner, because, it is impacting his right of collecting revenue, as agreed to by the respondents, but is also violative of the agreed parameters set in the agreement executed inter se the parties. Therefore, the said letter dated 1-10-2007 issued by respondent No.2 has been impugned through the instant petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that S.176 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, envisages that records pertaining to land be maintained by a Village Officer and are thus a public record, section 177 of the Land Revenue Act, entitles any person to obtain certified copies of this record, subject to payment of fee, therefore, issuance of Fards cannot be restrained, likewise, the Sub-Registrar/ Registrar has no authority to refuse registration of a document, execution of which is admitted by the executant. (Ghulam Yasin v. District Officer (R.), Jhang and 2 others PLD 2007 Lahore 689 and that Article 4(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees that no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law to do, thus the impugned letter is illegal and ultra vires of law.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the impugned letter was issued in view of illegal construction, being raised by ghost societies, and also on account of the fact, that same societies, had not fulfilled legal and codal formalities, they violated law and were causing loss to the prospective buyers, the spirit and purpose of issuance of this letter was to safeguard the interest of prospective buyers, so they be not swindled of their earnings, he, however, frankly conceded, the proposition urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua sections 176 and 177 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, but submitted that during the pendency of the instant petition, a revised letter was issued on 17-3-2008, by responded No.2, wherein it was clarified that copies of the Revenue Record, would be made available freely, thus the petitioner has no grievance anymore.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, though was satisfied to an extent by this concession, but, prayed that as the matter is of paramount public importance, therefore, an authoritative interpretation be made to ensure that copies of the Revenue Record are made available freely to the general public on payment of requisite charges and as it shall alleviate the misery and agony of general public.

5. As the matter is of general public importance, therefore, I propose to decide it on merits, notwithstanding the concession made by respondent No. 2.

6. Though from the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and record it appears that the impugned letter was issued for a noble purpose, to ensure that general public is not deprived of its legitimate earnings, but it played havoc and caused a lot of inconvenience to the general public, as the lower Revenue staff, was granted discretion, it was misused with impunity in the garb of this letter. This resulted in violation of law, genuine requests of the general public for providing certified copies were also declined.

7. The purpose referred to by the learned A.A.-G. for non-issuance of extracts of land (Fard) and non-registration of sale-deeds, was to safeguard public interest, but the method adopted was not proper, as it was violative of law. If some societies had not adhered to fulfil codal and procedural formalities, they should have been dealt with in accordance with law and appropriate action for non-compliance of legal requirements against them should have been initiated. The solution devised was neither proper nor in accordance with law, thus, it resulted in creating choas.

8. Section 176 of the Revenue Act, 1967, mandates that any document prepared, which a village officer is required by law or rules made under the said Act to maintain, is deemed to be a public document and is thus property of the government, therefore, the village officer is custodian of all such records and has been declared to be a public officer. Section 177 of the Land Revenue Act further clarifies the purpose of issuance of extracts of these documents, it commands that subject to payment of fee and any rules framed by the Board of Revenue, copies of all maps, land records which are required to be prepared under the Land Revenue Act are open to public inspection and their certified extracts/certified copies can be obtained by any person, applying in the manner ordained. Therefore, no officer exercising powers under the Land Revenue Act is bestowed with authority to override the provisions of sections 176 and 177 of the Act (ibid) and any order otherwise, is illegal. Therefore, the impugned letter directing respondent No. 3 not to issue certified copies is patently illegal and ultra vires of law and is, therefore, set aside.

9. Sub-clauses 2(a)(b) and (c) of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, also mandate and command that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law, likewise no person shall be prevented from or be hindered, in doing, that which is not prohibited by law and lastly no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do. The Constitution being the supreme law, therefore, mandates and commands that all State functionaries to act within the parameters set by law, thus, any direction or command otherwise and in contravention of this enactment is illegal. It also is a crying demand of the general public that the Revenue Offices, in particular, refuse issuance of certified copies of land records, therefore, remedial measures be initiated. Thus, if any such complaint, is brought to the notice of superior officer in Revenue hierarchy they should ensure that delinquent persons be adequately dealt with and punished in accordance with law.

10. Before parting with this judgment it also is clarified, that the Registration Officer is under a bounden duty under sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act to register every document presented to him in accordance with these sections except, of course, those documents which suffer from any legal impediment recognized by law. Reference Ghulam Yasin v. District Officer (R.), Jhang and 2 others PLD 2007 Lahore 689.

11. This petition is therefore, allowed, the impugned letter is set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith issue copies of the land record as prayed for by the petitioner. M.H./A-7/L Petition allowed.