P L D 1963 W (PLP)

Mutation‑

Dispute regarding title‑Mutation sanctioned by local revenue officers after enquiry‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in Civil Court ‑ Revenue Officers not expected to go into intricate questions of fact and law while deciding cases of title. Shaukat Ali for Petitioner. This revision petition relates to certain entries made in the revenue records which were prepared during the course of the first Land Revenue Settlement of the newly merged Gadoon area. There was a dispute between the two parties regarding the ownership of certain lands situated in village Ghabansi, Tehsil Swabi, district Mardan. The respondents made an application to the Settlement Officer alleging that the land in dispute was really in their ownership, and had only been mortgaged with the father of the petitioner. The petitioner's plea was that his father had bought the land outright from the respondents. An enquiry was held by the local Revenue Officers and the Settlement Officer found that the entire land in dispute belonged to the respondents and had been mortgaged with the father of the petitioner for Rs. 14,000,

00. Some of it was redeemed at a later date but a part of it still remains under mortgage with the petitioners. Entries were made in the revenue records accordingly. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Addi tional Commissioner which was dismissed. A revision has now been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commis sioner. The main ground which has been taken up before me is that the mortgage deed which had been relied on by the respondents has not been duly proved as its execution was denied on behalf of the petitioner. It was also contended that the signatures of the petitioner's father on the alleged mortgage deed were not genuine and that the correct signatures were in the Bank at Rawalpindi so that a comparison could easily have been made by the Revenue Officers. On the other hand an open enquiry was held by the Revenue Officers. In the presence of the entire village community and the general consensus of opinion was in favour of the respondents. Revenue Officers are not expected to go into intricate questions of fact and law while deciding cases of this kind, which do not determine rights, and at best shift the burden of proof. The points which have been raised necessitated the framing of issues and recording of evidence on oath i.e., following the procedure outlined in the Civil Procedure Code. Evidently this would be a matter for determination by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction and the Revenue Officers were justified in contenting themselves with the result of an oral summary enquiry held in the presence of the village, community. I would for these reasons dismiss the revision petition, particularly as a second remedy is open to the petitioners, viz., to go to a Civil Court and get the matter deter mined. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.