' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The dispute pertains to agricultural land measuring 136 kanals 3 marlas, situated in Mauza Kala Bali, Tehsil and District Jhang. It was owned by Salehoon, he transferred this land to his son Akhtar Abbas (respondent No,2) vide gift mutation No,419, dated 20-3-1980.
Thereafter Akhtar Abbas, sold this property to different persons including the petitioners. Later Naheed Kausar and Kaneez Fatima, sisters of Akhtar Abbas, filed a Review Application, challenging mutation No,419, dated 20-3-1980. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Jhang, dismissed the same on 17-1-1993. Aggrieved thereof, they filed Appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, which was also dismissed on 2-4-1995. Thereafter they filed Revision Petition No,R.O.R.
No,1548 of 1995 before the respondent No,4 wherein, Akhtar Abbas, made a conceding statement, accepting the claim of his sister, hence, the Revision Petition was allowed and the stated mutation set aside. The present petitioners gained knowledge in this respect on 17-7-2000, they applied for copy, it was provided to them on 27-7-2000. Thereafter, they filed Review Application No,140 of 2000, before the Respondent No,4, it was dismissed, on the ground of limitation, holding that Review Application was barred by 2 years 6 months and 24 days. The petitioners are aggrieved of this order and hence the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, were bona fide purchasers with consideration and the disputed land was sold to them by a registered sale-deed on 26-5-1981, therefore, the conceding statement of Akhtar Abbas, for annulment of mutation No,419, is of no consequence, as he was not owner of the disputed property at the time, when he granted concession, the consent is mala fide and amounts to fraud and misrepresentation, the order was obtained collusively to deprive the petitioners of valuable property. Even otherwise, the petitioners were proper and necessary party to the proceedings therefore, no order to their detriment could be passed without hearing them, the mutation was challenged after 16/17 years ofsanction, therefore, it could not be reviewed, being barred by afflux of time.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents vigorously supported the impugned order and raised issue qua, the maintainability of petition, he emphatically stated the remedy if any is before the Courts of plannery jurisdiction and findings of fact cannot be interfered into with, in the constitutional jurisdiction. To fortify his contention, he relied on (1968 SCMR 842) "Lal and others v.
Mian Dad and another".
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
5. It is clear from record that Akhtar Abbas became owner of the disputed property vide mutation No,419, dated 20-3-1980, he thereafter sold the disputed land to different persons including the petitioners on 26-5-1981. Therefore, he was not owner of the disputed land after this date, the petitioners had acquired valuable rights in this property and stepped into his shoes, thus his consent qua annulment of mutation is of no consequence. Further no action, to petitioners detriment, could be taken without hearing them, this was not done, thus they have been condemned un-heard. This is voilative of rules of natural justice and therefore, cannot sustain. The respondent No,1 clearly concealed material and relevant facts by not disclosing that he was not owner of the property in dispute, and had transferred it to the petitioners. Further Akhtar Abbas had succeeded before the D.C. And the Commissioner in defending mutation No, 419, dated 20-3-1980, therefore, it remains a mystery as to why he conceded to the claim of his sisters, after gaining this momentous advantages this itself casts serious doubts qua his concession, in fact it gives credence to) the petitioners assertion that annulment of mutation No, 419, was collusive and fraudulent.
' The petitioners had stated in un-ambiguous and clear terms, that they gained knowledge of the purported transaction, on 17-7-2000, made application to obtain copy, which was delivered to them on 27-7-2000, they tiled Review Application No,140 of 2000 on 31-7-2000. Therefore, prima facie they challenged the transaction immediately upon gaining knowledge, well within the period of limitation. There is absolutely no material on record to controvert these assertions,the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore entails inquiry and evidence for which adequate opportunity should have been granted to the parties, this was not done. In cases of fraud, suspicious and collusive transactions, remedial measures for correction should be readily invoked, as fraud and mis-representation vitiate the most solemn of transactions, no amount of lapse of time, can sanctify such a transaction, in fact, on first available opportunity such transaction shouldbe set aside and any illegal gains reversed. The respondent No,4 was adequately equipped and armed in this regard (PLD 1970 Lahore 614) "Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M.
Khan, Member, Board of Revenue West Pakistan Lahore and 3 others. The impugned order therefore, is not in consonance with law and the principles of natural justice, thus, cannot sustain.
The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter be referred to the Courts of plannery jurisdiction for adjudication is devoid of rationale as the lapse was committed by respondent No,4, therefore, he is bound to rectify and correct it, if proved. The precedent referred to is in-applicable to the present facts and is therefore distinguishable.
6. This petition is therefore allowed, the impugned order, dated 28-5-2001 is set aside, the proceedings shall deem to be pending with respondent No, 4, who will proceed to adjudicate and decide the matter afresh, after hearing all parties concerned to the dispute and attending to the observations made in this order. No order as to costs.