P L D 1962 W (PLP)

2. It transpires that Bholi Bakhsh respondent, since deceased, had made a statement to the Revenue Officer at the attestation of mutation No. 10 of Sammun Bala on the 19th March 1952, that Mst. Kariman had died nearly 5 years before, when they were all on their way to Pakistan as refugees from India. The Patwari's report dated 8‑9‑51, in Col. 15 of the mutation sheet shows that this fact was attested by Abdul Majid Lambardar, while Abdul Ghaffar, Lambardar, Lalupur corroborated it In the statement recorded by R. O. at the time of attestation of this inheritance mutation, Mst. Kariman petitioner, who claims to have been widow ed more than a score of years ago and to have been kept in the dark about the respondents' false and fraudulent machinations, appealed to the Collector on 25‑8‑1960, against this mutation. The respondents admitted that Mst. Kariman was alive; but alleged that she had been abducted by one Arju whom she married They, therefore, pleaded that in so far as the devolution of pro perty is concerned, her re‑marriage had the same effect as her death and, therefore, her appeal be rejected. In support of her re‑marriage they have produced a copy of the birth register, which showed that Arju had a son born to him on 14‑10‑19.19. They also produced a copy of village Dongranwali's Voters List, which showed Mst. Kariman as the wife of Arju. The Collector found that as Mst. Kariman was admittedly alive the allegations of her second marriage were irrelevant in this mutation of inheritance on her death. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and directed the respondents to seek their remedy in a competent Court.

3. It is a pity that the Collector did not order the prosecution of the parties responsible for the fraud. We can never expect clean and honest dealing unless officers are prepared to take action against people responsible for getting fraudulent entries made in revenue records in the full knowledge that the person whom they are showing as dead, is alive. It is the duty of Revenue Officers to spare no efforts to bring culprits practising frauds and deceits of this nature to book. If Bholi Bakhsh respondent was dead, deterrent action could still have been taken against Lambardars, Abdul Majid of this revenue estate and Abdul Ghaffar of Lalupur. I would direct that the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, may move for the registration of cases under section 193 read with sections 182 and 420/109, P. P. C.

4. I find that the line taken by the Additional Commissioner in the second appeal is extraordinary and is entirely alien to the basic principles of mutation procedure. The mutation in appeal related to the alleged death of Mst. Kariman and to succession to her estate. As she is undoubtedly alive and the fraud had been exposed, the Additional Commissioner had no option but to maintain the Collector's appellate order canceling the mutation. It is not the function of appellate authorities in such cases to arrange compromises or to issue directives that a fraudulent muta tion of a widow's death should be converted into and attested as one of devolution of her land on the ground of her alleged re‑marriage, when it is proved that she is alive. One would in fact have expected the Additional Commissioner also to find fault with the Collector for failing to take action against the perpetra tors of a fraud of such magnitude. The petitioner has vehemently denied before me that she ever confessed before the Additional Commissioner, that she had remarried Arju Arain as alleged by the respondents. No deed of compromise is on the file nor has any statement been recorded by the Additional Commissioner admitting that she re‑married. Mst. Kariman during her evidence b; fore me appeared to be very much psychologically affected and distracted by misfortune. Appa rently she has had a hard life since partition, owing to her having been left a helpless widow against collaterals, who have ill‑treated her and not hesitated even in showing her as dead in order to deprive her of her rights in her husband's property. Half the time she could not follow the proceedings in my Court and I had to spend a good deal of time to arrive at the facts. However, enough has been adduced to make out a prima facie case against the factum of re‑marriage on the following grounds: (i) A copy of compromise deed was produced whereby the respondents took her ornaments away, which her deceased husband had given to her. Although this deed shows that hence forth she will be free to re‑marry, it does not mention that she has already re‑married. This, therefore, seems to belie the allega tion that she married Arju in 19:

8. It also shows how helpless she has been, since a Muslim widow cannot be deprived under any law of her ornaments. (ii) As regards the respondents, producing the Voters List of village Doongrawali, the petitioner claims that Mst. Kariman wife of Arju Arain of that village is another woman, who is Arain by caste, while she is a Rajput. She vehemently denies that she is Arju's wife or that she has done karawa (second marriage on husband's death). (iii) As for the Birth Certificate in regard to Fazal Hussain, she states that this Fazal Hussain is Arju's son through his Arain wife Mst. Kariman. As it happens, Arju and Muhammad Ismail Lambardar of revenue estate Doongranwali were reported to be outside the Court and I summoned them without notice and recorded their evidence on oath. They have both corro borated the above facts.

5. In the circumstances, I find no justification for the Addi tional Commissioner's order. I, therefore, set it aside and restore the Collector's order. If the respondents have any claim that the petitioner has re‑married, they are at liberty to enter up a separate mutation to that effect. The proper place where that mutation can be attested in the village Doongranwali, where Mst. Kariman resides and not at Divisional Headquarters, for every child in at village would know whether the petitioner had re‑married and whether she or another lady Mst. Kariman (Karim Bibi Arain), is the wife of Arju and mother of his son Fazal Hussain. In fact the Collector may kindly enquire into this point also even if the respondents do not get a mutation of re‑marriage entered up. If the petitioner's version is found to be correct, action under the law may be taken against the respondents for obtaining her, land by fraudulent means by making false statements in the appeals and revisions. This action should be taken additionally to that in para. 3 (Supra). The Revision is, therefore, accepted and Rs. 100 is awarded to the petitioner by way of costs in the special circumstances of this case. A. H. Petition accepted.