2003 PLP 1738 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 3-6-2002 whereby the learned Chairman of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissed Appeal No.555 of 2002, filed by the petitioner against his dismissal from service through order dated 15-12-2001. Briefly stated the facts leading to the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner, while working as Additional Naib Tehsildar, Bahawalpur, was served with a charge-sheet stating therein that he had attested Mutation No.295 on 3-3-1993 on the basis of a fraudulent and fictitious sale-deed dated 23-3-1949 in favour of one Niaz Ahmed for a piece of land measuring 124 Kanals situated in Chak No.93, Tehsil Chistian, District Bahawalnagar. He submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet. A detailed enquiry was conducted into the matter, as a consequence whereof the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 15-12-2001. He preferred a review petition against the aforesaid order, which was rejected on 6-3-2002. Thereafter, both the above orders were assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal through an appeal provided under the law. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal, after advancing cogent reasons, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents appended with the petition. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the alleged mutation was sanctioned after a period of 44 years simply on the basis of a photostat copy of a sale-deed provided by the party. Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, enjoins the Revenue Officer to hold an enquiry regarding the genuineness of all the entries in the Revenue Record. In the case in hand the petitioner, without applying his mind for reasons best known to him, sanctioned the aforesaid mutation in a slipshod manner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the reasons advanced by the Tribunal in upholding the order of dismissal of the, petitioner, which is in the following terms:-- "

6. The Inquiry Officer has taken pains to hold the inquiry strictly in accordance with the rules by examining witnesses who were allowed to be cross-examined by the accused including the appellant. The case of the appellant, however, was based on the interpretation of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 And the Land Record Manual. As noted by the Inquiry Officer and not having been denied before me, during arguments, appellant sanctioned Mutation No.295 on the basis of a photostat copy of the sale deed. Requirement of section 42 ibid is that a registered sale-deed has to be produced to enable the Revenue Officer to satisfy himself about the contents of the document and thereafter he may confirm the transaction, evidenced by the registered deed. Photostat copy of the sale -deed, by no stretch of imagination can be considered a registered sale-deed. The sale-deed was purportedly executed in the year 1949 whereas the sanction to the mutation was allowed by the appellant on 3-3-1993 i.e. after about 44 years. Any person of reasonable and prudent mind would at once be put on guard to launch a summary inquiry as to why the beneficiary waited for a period of 44 years to derive the benefit accruing to him after such a long period. The Inquiry Officer on further inquiry into the whole gamut of dispute found that the land mentioned in the sale-deed produced by Niaz Ahmad was in the ownership of the Provincial Government in the previous Jamabandi for the year 1990-91. It was the duty of the appellant as a Revenue Officer to get the particulars of the sale-deed verified from the Kanungo from the Revenue Record. If this was done the mischief could have been averted by refusing to sanction the mutation. Either the appellant was hand in glove with the Patwari and the so- called purchaser or he did not know the basics of Revenue law in either case he did not deserve to continue as Revenue Officer. Even otherwise under the Land Record Manual a period of three months is fixed for a person acquiring any right in an estate as land-owner to report the acquisition of rights to the Patwari concerned." The plea of the petitioner that he has been discriminated against as other persons involved in the transaction have been let off with minor penalties is devoid of any force. He, being the Incharge of the Registry Branch, is supposed to satisfy himself with all the legal requirements and to verify the contents of a sale-deed before attesting the mutation. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any substance is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M-744/S Petition dismissed.