2015 PLP 526 (CLC)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 30-1-2012 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan whereby appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners purchased 2-kanals and 14-males from respondents Nos.2 to 4 Nazar Muhammad etc. through Mutation No.3534 dated 3-3-2005. Possession of the said land was handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, Hamad Raza, the present respondent purchased 2-K, I4-M of land from Mst. Gullan Mai and Mukhtar Bibi widow of Noor Muhammad through Mutation Nos.3606 and 3591, dated 30-6-2005. Respondent No.1 Hamad Raza filed a time-barred appeal before learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Kabirwala against Mutation No.3534, dated 3-3-2005. Learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Kabirwala vide order dated 26-10-2005 accepted appeal of the respondent. Thereafter, appeal filed by the present petitioner against that order in the court of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal was dismissed on 24-1-2006. The matter went upto the level of Board of Revenue in two revision petitions on different occasions, but on each and every occasion, the revision petitions were accepted and the case was remanded to learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), who on receipt of both the remand orders, dismissed the appeal without appreciating contention of the petitioner. The impugned orders are against the law and facts of the case, which were passed without consultation of record. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the land measuring 24-kanals, 18-marlas consists on ghair mumkin abadi i.e. Colony. Out of which 21-kanals is residential area, 04-marlas ghair mumkin rasta and 2-k, 18-m under the streets. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 Nazar Muhammad etc. sold land to the present petitioner which was under the streets. The said respondents were not legally competent to sell the land, which was already under the streets. The petitioner is claiming his right upon the land which is owned and possessed by respondent No.1 who is lawful owner of the said land after payment of full sale price. The case was remanded on two rounds a litigation to learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), who after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record, dismissed appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner has absolutely no right over the land under possession of respondent No.1. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in the order assailed through the instant revision petition. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Hamad Raza etc. present respondents filed appeal in the court of learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Kabirwala against Mutation No.3534, dated 3-3-2005 passed by the Revenue Officer Halqa Mauza Masat Pur, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal which was accepted vide order dated 26-10-2005 and the mutation was set aside. The concluding Para of the order reads as under:

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, which was dismissed vide order dated 24-1-2006. This order was challenged through revision petition filed in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was accepted by learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order dated 22-8-2007 and the case was remanded to learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, for fresh decision. Thereafter, the case was taken up by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal who after hearing contention of the parties disposed of the same vide order dated 30-4-2008. The operative part is as under:

7. Muhammad Ramzan, the present petitioner challenged that order through revision petition which was accepted by this court vide order dated 9-12-2009 and the case was remanded to learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal with the direction to decide the same afresh. However, after remand of the case, learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division took up the matter and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 30-1-2012. The operative part of the order is as under:

8. Whole of the above examination shows that all the parties are bona fide purchasers and having lawful title. The only issue is that there are contesting contention regarding location of particular piece of land purchased/owned by the parties. So, actually, the matter becomes of demarcation and not of dispute of title. Hence the revision petition is accepted and order regarding cancellation of Mutation No.3534 dated 3-3-2005 is set aside. The parties may move to competent forum for demarcation of the property claimed/owned by them. HBT/2/Rev. Petition accepted.