1990 PLP 1989 (CLC)

Ch.Muhammad lqbal for Petitioners. Ch.Ghulam Rasool for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th November, 1989. This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 6‑8‑1989 of the Commissioner, Faisalabad wherein on the appeal of the respondent the case.was remanded to the District Collector for fresh decision.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 29‑11‑1984 Revenue Officer sanctioned a sale Mutation No. 272 in favour of the petitioners 1 and

2. Respondent went in appeal before Collector, who ordered an enquiry into the question of fraud allegedly committed by the petitioner No. 3 regarding power of attorney and factum of sale with reference to the payment of consideration amount of Rs.1,60,

000. The matter was agitated upto the Board of Revenue, but the orders of enquiry were maintained. Thereafter Revenue Officer conducted an enquiry into the matter and sanctioned fresh Mutation No. 320 on 13-7-1988 in favour of the petitioners. The respondent filed an appeal before the A.C./Collector, Gojra, but had failed. He then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Faisalabad who vide impugned order remanded the case to the District Collector, Toba Tek Singh for fresh decision. Hence this revision.

3. I have heard the parties at length and have also examined the record of the case. A minute study of the case reveals that change of possession and payment of consideration money, which were the basic ingredients of transaction were altogether unfounded. This fact has been established from the order of A.C.‑I dated 13‑7‑1988 (wherein he had recorded the evidence of some witnesses to this effect) A.C./Collector's order dated I1‑10‑1988 and even it is admitted by the Commissioner while passing impugned order. It has also been held by a magisterial inquiry dated 2‑6‑1985, that the respondent was a victim of fraud and forgery as he has not been paid anything. On this pretext case under section 420 P.P.C. against the petitioners is also under trial. Apart from this position, there was also no exceptional necessity for the respondent to sell his entire landed property as he has no other business to run. It has been brought to my notice and is also evident from Mutation No. 320 that these days the respondent is depending on Zakat for his livelihood. Further, the petitioners also lodged declaratory suit in a Civil Court which was subsequently withdrawn for the reasons best known to them. But to my mind it was due to lack of any documentary proof in support of the petitioners. In view of the reasons stated above, the fact remains that the transaction took place in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions of section 42 of Land Revenue Act, as change of possession and payment of consideration money were unfounded at the relevant time. All this vitiates the entire proceedings. I

4. In view of what has been stated above, I set aside the orders of the Courts below as well as Mutation No. 320 dated 13‑7‑1988. Parties may approach the competent Courts criminal or civil, if so advised. A.A./358/R Order accordingly.