' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 17-1-1990, the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. In the plaint, it was stated that Gaman, father of the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell the suit-land in favour of Sajawal deceased/plaintiff No,1 in the year 1964. He filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement. The suit was decreed on 24-7-1974. He deposited the entire agreed price and a registered sale-deed was executed in his favour. Thereafter, he transferred the land to the remaining respondents by means of a Court decree dated 30-9-1984. Mutations Nos.705 and 706 were entered. However, mutations were rejected on the ground that these were violative of MLR 115. However, these mutations were then attested by the Tehsildar. An appeal was filed by the said Gaman and the cases were remanded. The said orders were stated to be illegal and void and a declaration was sought accordingly. Now Gaman deceased defendant filed a written statement, the contents whereof are rather evasive. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3- 12-1995. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Khanewal, on 16-9-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue that since the mutations were violative of the MLR as 1 Kanal of land was left out, the impugned judgments and decrees are without jurisdiction.
3. I have examined the record. I have already narrated above the respective pleadings of the parties. I do not find any denial of the fact that the agreement was executed and then specific performance decrees was passed and the sale-deed was executed in favour of Sajawal. Be that as it may, Sajawal appeared as P.W.1 and produced the relevant documents including the registered sale-deed Exh.P.8 executed by the Court of learned Civil Judge in favour of Sajawal and registered on 29-1-1981. Now Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner appeared as D.W.1 and in the course of his cross-examination he admitted that his father had withdrawn the price deposited to the Court.
According to him the respondents are in illegal possession but he does not know as to when they took possession.
4. Now according to the sale-deed Exh.P.8 the land measuring 114 Kanals, 12 Marlas belonging to Gaman was sold to Sajawal.
5. Now at the time of verification of the entries in Mutation No,701 it was found that in fact Gaman was owner of 115 Kanals, 13 Marlas whereas he sold 114 Kanals, 13 Marlas leaving only 1 Kanal which is less than subsistence holding and the mutation was rejected. Now according to the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1985-86 (Exh.P.1) the holding of Gaman is recorded as 114 Kanals, 13 Marlas. Now according to register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1981-82 Exh.D.4 holding is recorded to be 115 Kanals, 13 Marlas. According to entries in this document, 1 Kanal of land is owned by Gaman in Khewat No,100 and the remaining land in Khewat No,146. Exh.D.5 is copy of a Mutation No,174 attested on 24-5-1969 whereby the entire land in the said Khata including the said 1 Kanal belonging to Gaman was mortgaged with the Central Government.
6. Now it stands established on record that Gaman agreed to sell the land to Sajawal, the consideration was settled. Upon his refusal to perform the agreement, Sajawal filed a suit which was decreed and in execution of the decree, sale-deed was executed and registered in favour of Sajawal, by the Court. Gaman never challenged the said decree and admittedly withdrew the price deposited by Sajawal in Court. To my mind, the said provision of MLR 115 were not meant to be utilized for the benefit of such unscrupulous persons and to give them undue benefit. The learned Courts below have proceeded in the matter on the said basis and it cannot at all be said hat they have acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity within the meanings of section 115 C.P.C.
Now all the findings that the mutations were violative of the MLR have been recorded by the Revenue Officer and then his superiors in the same hierarchy. In the case of Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and 10 others (1994 SCM R 1935) sale effected by means of registered sale-deed was incorporated in the Revenue Records by attesting the mutations. The Assistant Collector, Sheikhupura reviewed the mutation on the ground that these are violative of MLR. An appeal and then revision were dismissed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The said orders were challenged by the vendees in the civil Court. The suit was partly decreed by the learned trial Court. Both the parties filed appeals which were dismissed. The vendees then filed RSA in this Court while cross-objections were filed by the vendors. The RSA was allowed and the said orders were declared to be void and the suit was decreed on the ground that only the Land Commission or the Land Commissioner appointed thereunder can take cognizance of the matter. When the vendors approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the CPLA was dismissed and the said judgment of this Court was upheld holding that the Revenue Officer cannot set aside the order of attestation of mutation and to annul the solemn transaction of sale entered into between the vendors and the vendee in respect of valuable landed property more so on the ground regarding which the jurisdiction expressedly vested in the Land Commission or their subordinate officer and not in any other forum including the civil Court.
7. I, therefore, do agree with the learned Courts below that the orders passed by the Revenue Officers cancelling the mutation on the ground that the same was violative of MLR 115 were without jurisdiction and void. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed in limine.