2001 PLP 375 (CLC)

(i) That Bashir Ahmad, the then Patwari, Jhuggian Nagra, defendant No.3 appeared in the Court and Sardar Muhammad Naseem, the then Settlement Clerk to A.D.C.(G), Lahore appeared on behalf of defendants Nos. l and 2. (ii) That without any letter of authority from the Collector, Lahore, the said clerk was allowed to represent the Collector and Province of Punjab by the Civil Court. (iii) That the same clerk, Sardar Muhammad Naseem, did not attend the Court on 31‑10‑1984 and thereupon ex parte proceedings were ordered against the Collector of the Punjab Government. (iv) That on 20‑11‑1984, the same clerk appeared as a witness of the plaintiff and recorded the statement. The suit was, thus, decreed ex parte against the Government on 15‑12‑1984. (v) The Civil Judge had apparently no jurisdiction under the law to issue mandatory injunction for entering or not entering the mutation as envisaged by section 172 of the Land Revenue Act. The page bearing Khata No.7 R.L.‑II Register appears to have been added subsequently and pasted to the binding cover of the register. It is separate from other pages. The original Register R.L.II was produced by Ch. Muhammad Sharif, E.A:C.(R), Lahore and was returned to him after inspection. Ch. Hamad Ilahi, Tehsildar, disowned the signatures shown as 'Hamad Ilahi' on R.L.II Khata No.7. He stated that he was not posted in Lahore in 1971, i.e. at the time of this allotment. He was last posted in Lahore in 1965 as Naib‑Tehsildar and he retired as Tehsildar, Border Allotment Committee in 1972. Thus, the question of his signing Register R.L.II in 1971 does not arise. Mr. Abdul Rehman, Junior Clerk, who was Settlement Ahalmad to A.D. C.(C) at that time and who used to fill columns 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 of R. L. II Registers under the order of A. D. C. (C), also disowned the handwriting of this allotment on the Khata No.7 of R.L.II. He also stated that the handwriting and signatures of Malik Khurshid Ahmad, the then A.D.C.(C), now retired are also not genuine but forged. He further stated that handwriting of Malik Khurshid Ahmad was typical being scribed and illegible handwriting whereas handwriting in Khata No.7 in question was clearly legible. Khata No.7 of R.L.II in question does not bear the signatures or thumb‑impression of the allottee in its relevant columns although the other Khatas of the same R.L.II had been signed or thumb‑marked by the concerned allottees. On all other Khatas of this R.L.II there is a Patwari's report that the proposed Khata numbers were actually available for allotment whereas there is no such report of this Khata. Although the address of Malik Khurshid Ahmed; A.D.C.(C) (Retd.) could not be traced even from SGA&I Department, the subordinates who had worked under him namely Mr. Abdul Majid Borala, the then Peshi Kanungo, Mr. Abdul Rehman, Junior Clerk, Mr. Abdul Samad, Patwari stated that Khata No.7 of R.L.II did not bear the handwriting and signatures of Malik Khurshid Ahmed. It is, thus, evident that Khata No.7 of R.L.II in the name of Muhammad Mazhar Ullah Khan is bogus'. (b) No effort by the so‑called allottee or his attorney was ever made for implementation of the said allotment till the year 1985 when the suit was instituted. (c) The decree was passed ex parte. Although contention of D.C./Collector, Lahore is that no notice was served while appearance of some officials with a view to giving consenting statements is borne out from the record. (d) The application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. having been filed abortively, now the case for reconsideration of the facts is pending adjudication before District Judge, Lahore. Despite the report of C.M.I.T. and the observations of the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the orders of Chief Minister for initiating action against the forged and fictitious allotment made, the Revenue Officer sanctioned Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692. A case has also been got registered with the Anti‑Corruption Establishment for fraud and forgery. (e) Notification, dated 19‑6‑1978 clearly lays down that any allotment that had not been incorporated in the Revenue Record before coming into force of the Repealing Act XIV of 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, should be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by ante‑dating the entries in the Register R.L.‑II and that such allotments should be cancelled forthwith. Notification, dated 5th September, 1979 lays down that allotments obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated orders are total nullity in the eyes of law and, therefore, should be ignored as non‑existent and the land treated as still available for disposal. (f) Section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters relating to correction of any entry in a record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations.

8. The facts as narrated above, in brief, are that allotment against professed verified claim of one Muhammad Mazharullah Khan was shown to have been made in the year 1971 on R.L.‑II at page 7, on a sheet which is different in colour than the rest of the pages of the register as established in the C.M.I.T. report. This alleged allotment was not incorporated in the Revenue Record till the year 1995. The ex parte decree was made the basis by the Notified Officer for issuance of directions to the Revenue Officer Halqa for incorporation of the said allotment in the Revenue Record. These directions purportedly were issued in the year 1988. The enquiry by C.M.I.T. was concluded on 25th of April, 1988 wherein the said allotment was declared to be bogus and an act of forgery. The then Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab concerned with the findings of the C.M.I.T. the Chief Minister of the Punjab gave orders for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Government officials found involved in the acts such as tampering with the official record (preparation of fake R.L.‑II sheet), fabrication of false evidence, forging of fictitious and bogus allotment orders, fraud, impersonation, misrepresentation of facts, false statements in Court, etc. The Revenue Officer Halqa despite the absence of any valid order setting aside the findings of the C.M.I.T. and the order of the then Chief Minister, proceeded to sanction Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692.

9. The crucial question' for determination is whether‑‑ (i) the allotment alleged to have been made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975 could be implemented in the Revenue Record especially when no application to that effect was pending with the concerned Settlement Authorities immediately before the Repealing Act of 1975. (ii) Section 172(vi) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters relating to the correction of any entry in a record of rights, periodical record of register of mutations.

10. Adverting to preposition (ii), unfortunately the order and decree of the Civil Court are not available on the file of this Court. It is a settled proposition of law that directions can be issued by the Civil Court to the Revenue functionaries to give effect to any determination made by it in respect of title, right, interest of an individual in some property. Whether the Civil Court has authority to determine genuineness or otherwise of an allotment claimed to have been made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 is best left to the superior judicial fora. Even if the Civil Court comes to the conclusion, notwithstanding jurisdictional aspect, that an allotment is genuine, can it issue directions to the Revenue Authorities to incorporate mutation to that effect? The answer will follow a brief resume of the instructions of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. For the purpose of determining the legal tenability of the orders of the Revenue Officer in sanctioning Mutations Nos.7690, 7691 and 7692, one is constrained to divert one's attention to the policy instructions of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing of the Board of Revenue. In Letter No.766/79/2216‑T(L), dated 5‑9‑1979, it' is laid down that "bogus allotments" can be categorised into:‑‑ (a) Allotments made per incuriam by an officer competent to do so without having regard to facts and law or by misconstruing evidence brought on record or by ignoring important piece of evidence. (b) Allotments obtained on the basis of forged/fabricated orders. As regards (a) above, obviously no Settlement Authority can interfere after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement), Act, 1958 except in cases which were instituted before 1‑7‑1974 or which have been remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court as laid in section 2 of Act No.XIV of 1975. As far (b) it may be observed that allotments obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated orders are total nullity in the eyes of law and therefore, should be ignored as non‑existent and the land treated as still available for disposal.

11. Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing, Board of Revenue, Notification No.1624/78/854, dated 19th June, 1978 is also relevant. It states at para. l:‑‑ "The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S&R), Punjab, has been pleased to decide that any allotment that has not been incorporated in the Revenue Record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by anti‑dating the entries in the Register R.L.‑II and should be cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so‑called allottee."

12. Revenue Officer Halqa at the time of attestation of the aforesaid mutations had the advantage of the existence of the report of C.M.I.T. which established the so‑called allotment of 1971 in favour of Muhammad Mazharullah Khan as an act of forgery. As per policy/law, the Revenue Officer Halqa was legally bound not to give effect to such allotment in the Revenue Record. The Notified Officer i.e. A.D.C.(G), Lahore Cantt. had to act upon the directions contained in the policy letter, dated 19th June, 1978 and instead of issuing directions for incorporation of the alleged allotment in the Revenue Record he was required to cancel it after hearing objections of the allottee. His directions addressed to Revenue Officer were devoid of any legal force and should have been ignored. D.C./Collector on 'report, dated 19th February, 1995 submitted by Revenue Officer seeking review of these directions, accorded his approval vide his order, dated 1st of March, 1995. There was no infirmity in this order. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) upheld this order in accordance with law and facts of the case. The concurrent findings of the two lower Courts suffer from no legal lacuna and therefore, admit of no interference. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./18/Rev. Revision dismissed.