P L D 1965 W (PLP)

M. Z. Khan for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 5th of September 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted and the case was remanded. The facts of the case are that at the instance of the respondent, mutation No. 235 was entered by the Patwari, in respect of the alleged gift to have been made by her in favour of her sister Mst. Ata Elahi. Malik Allah Bakhsh, a Member of the Union Council identified Mst. Karam Ilahi who was accompanied by Haq Nawaz a son of the donee. On 15‑1‑1963 Mst. Karam Elahi accompanied by Haq Nawaz, son of the donee, appeared before the Revenue Officer and was identified by Malik Allah Bakhsh, Member of the Union Council. The donor admitted having made a gift and having handed over possession to the donee. The. Revenue Officer ordered that the Girdawar should compare the entry and put up the case later on. Subsequently on 29‑1‑1963, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the mutation. Mst. Karam Ilahi subsequently went in appeal to the Collector alleging that she never appeared before the Assistant Collector. The appeal was rejected. She then went in revision to the Additional Commissioner, who remanded the case. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is on record that the Patwari entered the mutation at the instance of Mst. Karam Elahi who was then accompanied by Bahawal Bakhsh, brother of Mst. Karam Elahi and Haq Nawaz. It is also clear from the entry on the mutation Register that Malik Allah Bakhsh, a Member of the Union Council identified the donor who was then accompanied by Haq Nawaz son of the donee. It is true that subsequently Mst. Karam Elahi stated that she never made a gift and Allah Bakhsh gave statement that he never identified Mst. Karam Elahi. Allah Bakhsh is a Member of the Union Council and it should be presumed that he was known to the Revenue Officer. There is no reason why the Revenue Officer should have made a wrong entry, if at that time Allah Bakhsh had not identified the donor. At any rate, the position before the Revenue Officer was that the donor was before him, the son of the donee was also present and the Member of the Union Council identified the donor. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show what further requirements were needed before the Revenue Officer could have made up his mind to sanction or reject the mutation. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to certain rulings, but none of them is relevant to this case. The law has been clearly expressed by my learned predecessor Mr. Nasir Ahmad in P L D 1963 W. P, (Rev.) 35 and P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.)

101. In these circumstances the learned Additional Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Assistant Collector and the learned Collector. I, therefore accept the revision and direct that the order passed by the Collector shall stand. A. H. Petition accepted.