P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(b) Mutation‑

Mutation cannot be set aside on allegation of fraud or coercion‑Aggrieved party may seek remedy in civil Court. The material facts of these two Revision Petitions Nos. 28(i and 337 of 1961‑62 are as follows :‑‑ Gulshan Begum respondent before me is the wife of Muhammad Saleem, petitioner. They are first cousins and were married in August 1960. Before their marriage the land in dispute was gifted in part by Muhammad Saleem as far as he owned it and partly by Muhammad Saleem's uncle Khurshid Mahmud who had purchased it from Muhammad Saleem's mother. On 9‑9‑1960 i.e., about a month after the marriage Muhammad Saleem reported to the patwaris of the two villages Ghemi and Chak Abbas, District Rahimyar Khan where the land in dispute is situated that his wife Gulshan Begum had gifted away to him the property in dispute and two mutations Nos. 415 and 773 were entered accordingly. When the first mutation came up before the Revenue Officer, interrogatories were issued to the donor who is a pardanashin lady and resided in Rahimyar Khan town. These interrogatories were returned duly answered on 15‑9‑1960. In her replies the donor who is an educated lady having studied up to the Intermediate standard admitted the gift and transfer of possession. This mutation was accordingly decided in favour of Muhammad Saleem. In the other mutation Gulshan Begum appeared in person before the Revenue Officer, and was duly identified by her father‑in‑law who is also her un0l' being married to her father's sister. She again admitted the gift and transfer of possession, This mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the donee. About a month and a half later i.e., on 13‑12‑1960 it is alleged that Gulshan Begum was sent away by her husband to her parents who reside in Multan and from there sent a telegram to the Collector of the District saying that she had been kept in illegal confinement by her husband and parents‑in‑law and coerced into signing certain documents which she apprehended related to a transfer of her property in favour of her husband. An application was made on 19‑12‑1960 for copies of the two mutations which were supplied on 27‑12‑1960. Two appeals were filed before the Collector on 5‑1‑1961 and it was prayed that these two mutations be set aside being the result of fraud and coercion. The Collector keeping in view the attendant circumstances which he considered to be highly suspicious and doubtful believed in the story of Gulshan Begum and accepted the appeals. Second appeal filed with the Commissioner also met the same fate. His view was that the petitioner was in a peculiar position of trust and responsibility and could exercise undue influence on the respondents. The onus of proving the genuineness of the gift thus lay heavily on him and he had not been able to discharge it satisfactorily. Two revision petitions have now been filed by the husband, Muhammad Saleem. In my opinion both the petitions must succeed and on two grounds. Firstly; that the appeals before the Collector were time‑barred and secondly allegations of fraud and coercion are not normally to be investigated in detail by Revenue Officers during the course of the summary procedure adopted in deciding mutations but have to be left to be gone into by the civil or criminal Courts as the case may be. Considerable arguments were advanced as regards the first point of limitation which had been raised before the Collector and the Commissioner. The Commis sioner did not touch this issue but the Collector wrongly concluded that the Punjab Land Revenue Act as it stands is applicable to the former Bahawalpur State Area. This is not so. Section 153 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as applicable to the old Bahawalpur State does not allow the application of section 5 of the limitation Act in the matter of admission of appeals. The Punjab Land Revenue Act was amended in April 1955 to allow the applica tion of section 5 of the Limitation Act in this respect, but this amendment was not carried out by the Bahawalpur State Govern ment before integration and since then the Government of West Pakistan have not amended the Punjab Land Revenue Act as ap plicable to the old Bahawalpur State area. Sh. Iqbal Hussain has tried to urge that the mere adaptations carried out in the Land Revenue Act as applicable to Bahawalpur imply the appli cation of the amended Punjab Land Revenue Act to that region. Obviously this position is legally incorrect and not tenable. In the alternative he has tried to urge that even under the unamended section 153 of the Land Revenue Act section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable or at least there can be a grave doubt regarding its non‑applicability and the benefit of this doubt should go to Gulshan Begum. This position again is untenable in view of the decision of the Full Bench of Financial Commissioners in Nawab Sir Mehr Shah v. Lt. Dewan Sahib Khan (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 220). He relies on an earlier decision of Mr. Miles Irving in Nawab and others v. Gandamal and others (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 93) but this decision has been clearly over‑ruled in the Full Bench decision. Sh. Iqbal Hussain's plea is that it is not incumbent on me to follow the Full Bench decision which is only applicable to the ex‑Punjab, but I see no reason to differ from the views expressed by two eminent Financial Commissioners in Nawab Sir Mehr Shah v. Lt. Diwan Sahib Khan. It was for that very reason that section 153, of the Punjab Land Revenue Act was amended in 1955 to admit the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of admission of appeals and', reviews. The Collector clearly acted illegally in admitting both; the appeals which were definitely time‑barred. As regards the allegation of fraud and coercion I am const rained to observe that both the Collector and the learned Commis sioner have failed to follow the large number of decisions of the Board of Revenue and the Financial Commissioners on this point. The facts of the case as narrated above clearly are that the respondent admitted the factum of gift and transfer of possession in one case personally before the attesting officer and in the other before another Revenue Officer and signed the relevant documents in token of her admission. She is not an illiterate villager nor was she a new‑comer or a stranger in her father‑in- law's family. I am given to understand that on the contrary she is economically, socially and educationally better off than her husband. Thus the argument relied on by the learned Commis sioner does not hold good. It is really for her to go to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and prove that she was coerced into making these admissions or in the alternative defrauded of her property. The Revenue Officers are not competent during the course of summary mutation proceedings to decide these questions. It may be further stated that all along she had two maid‑servants who came with her from her parents family and were in attendance on her throughout, The Collector's Court is less than a furlong away from her place of residence at Rahimyar Khan and she did not make any allegations of coercion or fraud to either of the two Revenue Officers before whom she appeared when answering interrogatories in the case of Mutation No. 415 of village Ghemi and when making a statement in the case of the other Mutation No. 773 of Chak Abbas. Her signa tures and her admission have not been denied. All these factors leave no room for doubt in my mind that it is for Gulshan Begum to go to a civil Court and not for Muhammad Saleem. As a result of the above discussion I would accept both the revision petitions and restore the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. K. M. A. Petitions accepted.