MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide W.P. No. 11323/03 and W.P No. 14418/03 as common questions are involved.
2. The last male owner of the land measuring 840 kanals in village Dhori, Tehsil Bhalwal was Ellaho son of Nathu. He died in the year 1923. The land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Ijan as a limited estate. The widow proceeded to transfer half of this land to her daughter, namely, Aalan on 12.12.1929. The widow died in the year 1956 and the remaining lard in her name i.e. 440 kanals was mutated in favour of the collaterals of the said Ellaho. The said Aalan and the said Mst. Ijan transferred half of the said land to one Muhammad Munir through a compromise decree. This alienation was challenged not only by the collaterals of Ellaho but also by Mst. Aalan. This suit was decreed by a learned Civil Judge at Bhalwal, on 6.2.1986.
According to this decree, not only the alienation by Mst. Aalan but also the alienation by Mst. Ijan in favour of Aalan was set aside. The result was that the entire estate reverted back to Ellaho to be distributed amongst his legal heirs. This judgment and decree was not challenged any further. The decree was consequently implemented in the revenue records vide Mutation No. 2710 attested on 9.4.1986, in favour of the widow, the two daughters and Rehman the collateral. Mst. Aalan died in the year 1993 and mutation of her inheritance No. 3207 attested on 20.7.1994 was challenged by Sher Muhammad petitioner (W.P. No. 11323/03) by filing of appeal. This appeal was allowed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Bhalwal, on 12.11.1995. Thereafter, Mutations Nos. 3703 and 3704 were taken up as Shahat Warasat and sanctioned. These mutations both corrected and uncorrected were questioned by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by filing a civil suit. Maqbool Ahmad petitioner (W.P. No. 14418/03 also) filed a suit challenging the very alienation in favour of the said respondents.
Yet another suit was filed by Sher Muhammad petitioner (W.P. No. 11323/03). All these suits were pending when respondents Nos. 3 to 11 filed an application before the respondent No. 2 for correction of Mutations Nos. 3703/3704 on the ground that Mst. Aalan had already sold her share of land to them vide Mutations Nos. 2908 and 2909.
3. Sher Muhammad approached this Court first by filing his writ petition on 16.8.2003. It was taken up on 18.8.2003 when report and comments were called for and status quo was ordered to be maintained. However, on the same day, the respondent No. 1 passed an order directing review of the said mutations and ordered correction as prayed for by the said respondents. W.P. No. 14418/03 was filed by another collator challenging the said order.
4. Sh. Naveed Shehryar and Ch. Fawad Hussain, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioners argue that apart from the fact that there was a stay order issued by this Court on the same day, it was in the notice of the respondent No., 1 that civil suits are pending, however, he proceeded to pass an order directly affecting the title of the parties to the detriment of the petitioners in these cases. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand contends that the suit file by his clients had been withdrawn and there was no other suit in the field.
5. I have already narrated some relevant facts of the case above. The contesting respondents claimed to have purchased the share of Mst. Aalan vide Mutations Nos. 2908 attested on 7.6.1989 and 2909 attested on 19.8.1989. Now this alienation had been questioned by the sons of Rehman the said collateral of Ellaho by means of a suit filed on 22.11.2001. The plaintiffs in this case are Sher Muhammad petitioner in W.P. No. 11323/03 and Muhammad Yar the father of the petitioner in W.P.
No. 14418/03. The said respondents had also filed a suit questioning the said inheritance mutations.
However, these were allowed to by withdrawn by the learned Trial Court with permission to file a suit afresh on 25.7.2003 on which date the file was requisitioned specially on application of the said respondents as the case was fixed for 20.9.2003. I find that not a single formal defect has been pointed out. However, an order was passed allowing the said respondents to withdraw the suit With permission to file afresh. Be that as it may, this is a matter to be dealt with if questioned by the petitioners in proper proceedings. However, the fact remains that the respondent No. 1 has proceeded in rather a post hustle manner. This Court has directed maintenance case of status quo on 18.8.2003 but he proceeded to pass his order. Even it fit be assumed that he had no knowledge of the order of this Court, the fact remains that the alienations on the basis whereof the preceded to order correction of the record stood challenged in the Civil Court and the decision ought to have been awaited upon. Sh. Naveen Shehryar, Advocate, has cited the case of Sher Zaman Vs. Mst.
Nawab Khatoon and 7 others (1998 SCM R 133) and I find that their lordships have deprecated the interference with revenue records on executive side when judicial proceedings are pending. The observations are that such an exercise on the administrative side would amount to interference with the course of justice.
6. For all that has been discussed above, both the writ petitions are allowed and it is declared that the impugned order dated 18.8.2003 passed by the respondent No. 1 shall not be implemented and will be subject to the decision of the Civil Courts in the pending civil suits on the same subject. No orders as to costs.
7. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.