' Brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that respondent No,1 has filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Mian Gul predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 23-9-1959 which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 21-9-1959 on the basis of compromise. The amount of pre-emption was also deposited in the Court. The respondents filed execution petition before the Executing Court who initiated the proceedings on the application of the respondents. The execution petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-6-1961. The respondents allegedly did not file any application for restoration of the same and also not agitated before any higher forum. The respondent No,1 submitted an application before the D.C.O./Collector for implementation of the decree which was dismissed by the D.C,/Collector vide order, dated 17- 12-1996. Thereafter, the respondent No,1 being aggrieved agitated the matter before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha who dismissed the same vide order, dated 25-2-1997. Thereafter, he preferred a revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide order, dated 14-10-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration. Along with application for ad interim relief in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Mianwali. Learned trial Court dismissed the application for ad interim relief vide order, dated 13-1-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Mianwali who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 6-4-2005. Hence the present revision petition..
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent has filed execution petition before the Executing Court for execution of the judgment secured by him on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties as is depicted from the judgment and decree dated 21-9-1995 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-6-1961 which was not challenged by the respondent before any higher forum and after considerable delay submitted an application for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of the decree before the District Collector who dismissed the same and order of the District Collector was upheld by the Additional Commissioner Revenue. Both orders were reversed by the Member, Board of Revenue .Without adverting to section 45(b) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1957. He further submits that Member, Board of Revenue erred in law to accept revision petition of the respondent No,1 which is not consonance with the mandatory provisions of section 48, C.P.C. Read with Order XXI, C.P.C. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Mst. Haliman Bibi's case 1989 CLC 1588; Abdul Hamid's case 1969 PLD Dacca 357 and Messrs Capital Farms Islamabad's case PLD 1996 Lah.
99.
3. Learned Law Officer has entered appearance. He submits that revision petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is the duty and obligation of the Revenue Authorities to sanction the mutation on the basis of- the decree, therefore, D.C./Collector and Commissioner Revenue erred in law not to sanction the mutation in favour of the respondents on his application. It is rightly reversed by the Member, Board of Revenue after judicial application of mind. Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguished on fact and law as the judgments cited are arising from general suits whereas in the present case respondent No,1 has secured pre- emption decree and the amount had already been deposited. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force . In view of Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C. And the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Ali Ahmad's case PLD 1973 Lah. 207 and Maulvi Abdul Qayyum's case 1992 SCMR 241. The relevant observation is as follows:- "It will be material to bear in mind, that a decree in a pre-emption suit is of a peculiar nature. Under Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C., the title of the property accrues to the decree-holder on payment in the Court of purchase money together with costs, if any. It has not been controverted before us that the requirements of rule 14 have already been complied with by the appellant. Thus, irrespective of the fact whether the possession is delivered to him or not, title in the property has vested in the appellant and he is owner of the land in dispute. Viewed in this context, the respondents' opposition to the execution of the decree becomes all the more ethereal."
Both the Courts below have concurrently refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners which is also in consonance with the law laid down in Shahzada Muhammad Umar ' Baig's case PLD 1970 SC 139. The Privy Council laid down the following principle to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Tribunals below while exercising power under section 115, C.P.C. In N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and another's case PLD 1949 PC 26. The relevant observation is as follows:- ' This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters; (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
' The judgment of the Privy Council is followed by this Court in 1985 CLC 657. It was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No,1146-84 vide judgment, dated 31-3-1985 which was re- affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir's case PLD 1988 SC 625.
In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. It is settled proposition of law that observation in the interim orders' is tentative in nature. Therefore, trial Court is directed to decide the case without being influenced by the aforesaid observation of this Court.