MUHAMMAD SAEED SHEIKH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V).---Habib Ullah petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 against Ghulam Rasool etc. Respondents feeling aggrieved by an order, dated 19-6-2002 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sialkot.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the decree of Civil Court passed on 3-1- 1985 Mutation No.342 was sanctioned on 28-1-1985 and the shares were allocated to widow and collaterals in pursuance of decree of Civil Court. Against this mutation, no appeal or revision was filed. Review application was filed on 27-6-1998 which was rejected by District Collector vide his order, dated 17-1-2001 on the ground that application for change/correction of record was filed after 13 years. No application for condonation of delay was filed. Appeal was filed against the order of District Collector which was accepted by Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide impugned order, dated 19-6-2002 on the ground that lower Court should have condoned the delay and it was also observed that decree of Civil Court dated 3-1-1985 was not carried out correctly in record; hence the present revision petition and the main ground against the impugned order is that District Collector dismissed the application of respondents on the ground of limitation and E.D.O.
(Revenue) while accepting appeal of respondents condoned the delay. That Mutation No.38 dated 26-8-1973 vide which shares of parties were determined was not challenged by respondents. On remand order of District Collector, dated 28-8-1978 Mutation No.38 was attested on 30-12-1978 and only change was to the extent of 1/2 share of Mst. Hakim Bibi sister of deceased. That against the order of District Collector dated 17-1-2001 whereby the review petition filed by respondents was rejected, no appeal could lie under section 163(4) of Land Revenue Act, 1967. Application before District Collector was treated as review application against Mutation No.342 dated 28-1-1985. That Nazeer Ahmad one of respondents was a witness of Mutation No.547 dated 25-6-1988, according to which share of Hassan Din was mutated. Hence, respondents had definite knowledge of order, dated 28-8-1978 passed on Mutation No.38 as well as order dated 30-12-1978 whereby Mutation No.38 was sanctioned. That the respondents did not file any application for condonation of delay before District Collector along with application for review; hence the Court was bound to dismiss the application on the ground of limitation. That the respondents were in full knowledge of share and the order regarding allocation of share and litigation has been going against the acquisition authority upto the level of Supreme Court and award was announced by Land Acquisition Collector, Industries Department on 12-2-1993 wherein, share of petitioner was reflected as were given to them as an impugned order of Revenue Court; hence the knowledge of order cannot be denied by respondents and they did not offer sufficient explanation for filing review application.
3. In view of above, it has been prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and impugned order may be set aside and order of District Collector may be restored.
4. Counsel for the respondents argued that Mutation No.38, dated 30-12-1978 was challenged by respondents in Civil Court and a decree was passed by Civil Court on 3-1-1985 according to which Mutation No.342 dated 28-1-1985 was sanctioned but in the order of Mutation No.342 the shares were not allocated according to decree of Civil Court; hence the respondents filed application for correction of shares according to decree of Civil Court which was technically rejected by District Collector that the respondents had filed application for correction of record before District Collector and no limitation applies for correction of record. That the Revenue Officer was not competent to go beyond the decree of Civil Court and order of Revenue Officer dated 28-1-1985 was void; hence there was no need to file any appeal or revision against void order. That the E.D.O.
(Revenue) vide his impugned order, dated 19-6-2002 has passed a speaking order and given direction to Revenue Officer to implement decree of Civil Court; hence these orders are liable to be upheld and revision petition is without merits and same may be dismissed.
6(sic). Heard. Record perused. It transpired from record that according to decree of Civil Court passed on 3-1-1985 Mutation No.342 was sanctioned on 28-1-1985 and the shares were allocated to widow and collaterals in pursuance of decree of Civil Court. No appeal was filed against the disputed mutation, however, review application was filed on 27-6-1998 which was rightly rejected on the ground that application for change/correction of record was filed after 13 years and no application of delay was filed which was treated as review by District Collector. E.D.O.(R) while accepting the appeal vide impugned order, dated 13 19-6-2002 was not right to condone the delay and no specific reason has been given by E.D.O.(R) vide impugned order for setting aside order of District Collector. The delay in filing the application against the impugned mutation after 13 years old order of 1985 was not explained fully as has been required by the law on this point and it is settled law that delay of every day has to be explained. The respondents could not avail plea that he was not in knowledge of impugned order of 1985 and it was not explained before the lower Court as to how the respondent had no knowledge of Mutation No.342 sanctioned on 28-1-1985 and it is the correct contention of counsel for the petitioner that no appeal lies against review under section 163(iv) of Land Revenue Act.
7. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioners is that respondent was in full knowledge of his share and the order regarding allocation share as litigation has being going on against the acquisition authority and award was announced by L.A.C. Industries Department and the share of parties were reflected as were given to them through Mutation No.342 of 1985. Hence the knowledge of the order cannot be denied by respondent and the E.D.O.(R) failed to pass a convincing order based on cogent reasons of delay in filing the appeal against Mutation No.342 of 1985 before the District Collector.
8. In view of the above impugned order of E.D.O.(R) is not maintainable in the eye of law.
Accordingly the revision petition is C accepted and impugned order of E.D.O.(R) dated 19-6-2002 is set aside.