1997 PLP 2028 (CLC)

6. A fresh suit was filed by the petitioners before the 'Civil Judge on 14‑5‑1983, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 10‑10‑1987, and its review was also rejected by the Civil Court on 7‑2‑1988.

7. The petitioners gave an application to the District Collector on 15‑6‑1988 for review of Mutation No.256 and Mutation No.88, and for implementation of the decree of the Additional District Judge dated 12‑5‑1977. This was rejected by the District Collector on 14‑12‑1988.

8. The petitioners' revision petition to the Commissioner was dismissed by the Commissioner on 20‑12‑1990.

9. The present petition is against the order of the District Collector dated 14‑12‑1988 and of the Commissioner dated 20‑12‑1990, and for implementation of the decree of the Additional District Judge dated 12‑5‑1977.

10. I will decide this case on the following considerations: (i) The decree passed by the Additional District Judge on 12‑5‑1977 in favour of the petitioners was a consent decree. The respondent did not file any appeal or further proceedings against it. As such, it became final. Nothing more was needed for its implementation in the Revenue Record. (ii)??????? Even if the petitioners did not approach the Revenue Authorities before, their application to the Tehsildar on 4‑4‑1983 to implement the decree dated 12‑5‑1977 should have been accepted forthwith by the Tehsildar and the record corrected accordingly, which meant the cancellation of Mutation No.256 and the review of Mutation No.88, in order to reduce the ownership of Mst. Ghulam Fatima from 45 Kanals, 17 Marlas to 22 Kanals, 10‑1/2 Marlas. (iii)?????? It is strange that when a consent decree had been passed to reduce the share of Mst. Ghulam Fatima in 1977, she yet went ahead to transfer her entire original holding to her sons in 1981 through Mutation No.256. (iv)?????? The above shows her fraudulent intent, and nobody can be allowed to derive any benefit under his or her own fraud. (v)??????? Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act allows variation in periodical record on the basis of facts admitted or aggrieved to, or when those are supported by a decree. In' the present case the decree was a consent decree, and therefore, it will attract both provisions in this section viz., relating to facts admitted or agreed to, and to facts or entries supported by a decree. (vi)?????? The Supreme Court in 1972 SCMR 322 has decided that for sanction of a new mutation based on a decree, execution :proceedings are not necessary. (vii) The District Collector bases his decision on the dismissal of the review by the Civil Court on 7‑2‑1988. The original suit by the petitioners and their review application were both irrelevant, because the original suit was a fresh suit, and a fresh suit could not be instituted in‑the presence of the order and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 12‑5‑1977; it was rightly barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The arguments of the respondents based on the law of ‑review are also irrelevant, because the petitioners are not seeking independent review of Mutation No.88 and Mutation No.256, but want their cancellation/modification in implementation of the decree of the Additional District Judge, which is still binding on the respondents. (viii)There is nothing on record to show that execution proceedings were filed by the petitioners and were rejected by the Additional District Judge. Thus, the Commissioner's rejection of the petition on this ground is wrong.

11. In view of the above I would accept the petition.

12. The result of this is that Mutation No.88 shall be reviewed so that the share of Mst. Ghulam Fatima is reduced from 45 Kanals, 17 Marlas to 22 Kanals, 10‑1/2 Marlas. Mutation No.256 and any other transfers under it shall only be valid to the extent of the share and property of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, which is 22 Kanals, 10‑1/2 Marlas. On the point that after a decree has been obtained by a party from a Civil Court, no further proceedings, including execution proceedings, are necessary to implement it by correcting and incorporating entries in the record of rights, periodical record, or the rights of mutations, or in any other Revenue Record. H.B.T./86/R???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.