' CH. ZAFAR IQBAL (MEMBER JUDICIAL-V).--- The learned counsel for the petitioners while contending for the admission of this revision petition outrightly assailed the vires of decision of EDO (Rev.) dated 25-1-2006. He assailed the alleged partiality of the EDO(Rev.) who according to him in collusion with the respondents Nos.1 and 2 passed an illegal order which is devoid of legality because he ignored the norms of justice and fairplay by setting aside Mutations Nos.1423 to 1426 dated 25-1-1987, which were validly entered on the basis of general power of attorney given by Mst.
Bakhtan and Sunahara. According to him, later on with mala fide motive the respondents managed to get fresh dates of deaths of both the deceased preceding to the date of mutation thus, creating a factor which could dubiously lead to undoing of the above referred mutations. He asserted that the respondents had interpolated the dates of deaths with a mala fide motive. He contended that the EDO (Rev.) had committed the misreading of tampered dates by believing them to be true. Thus, he made these dates the basic point on which hinged the fate of this case.
According to the learned counsel this intrusion of alleged fraud in a revenue matter had converted it into a matter of civil litigation. Ignoring this basic fact EDO (Rev.) resorted to decide the case under the provisions of revenue law despite being a civil matter thus, committing a basic legal mistake. He referred to the previous protracted litigation before the Honourable High Court and other subordinate Revenue Courts where this matter remained under adjudication due to controversial evidence and counter-evidences. Here in the instant case the EDO (Rev.) decided the case without caring for the corollaries of previous litigation and new ground realities. He did not ascertain the correctness of the version expounded by the respondents by changing the dates of death preceding to the mutations. In the end he requested that where the conduct of the Adjudicating Officer is questionable and the evidence relied upon is multi-facetious and the decision arrived at is not sustainable then this case needs to be re-galvanized by further adjudication at this juncture he requested for the admission of the revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments floated by the counsel for the petitioners. According to him the adjudication of this case had been carried out by the EDO (Rev.) with impartiality and discreetness. While rebutting the stance of the counsel for the petitioners he quoted that the deaths of both the general power of attorney givers preceded the attestation of mutations. It had been properly juxtaposed by the EDO (Rev.) after examining both the records of different Union Councils. The residential union council of the deceased had the preceding dates in the record but the record of the distant union council where the deceased did not belong showed the date of death after attestation of mutation. The secretary of that union council corroborated the facts that these are suspicious entries. This is the focal point around which revolved the fate of case and rested the interests of the litigant parties when this evidence was properly sifted out and exact dates of death were established the EDO (Rev.) rightly based his decision on these all significant points and announced a legally valid decision which displayed the touch of judiciousness. It was also 'contended by the counsel that such conceitful acts can legally be dealt with under the Revenue Laws and are not needed to be thrashed out by the Civil Court. It is normal practice to keep the Revenue Record straight being having the presumption of truth. He highlighted the facts that a simmering protracted litigation had been there between the parties for the last many years and the latest decision has been brought to its logical fate in compliance with the orders of Honourable High Court which had directed the EDO (Rev.) to decide the case in accordance with the Revenue Laws. Finally he requested when an unrebuttable evidence has surfaced then further adjudication has become unnecessary to entangle the parties in further litigation, he requested for the dismissal of the revision petition in limine.
3. I have gone through the record on file as well as through the memo. Of revision and have considered the arguments tendered by both the sides. It is crystal clear that those power of attorneys on the basis of which Mutations Nos.1423 to 1426 were entered and attested have proven to be gone infructuous. It is beyond any. Shadow of doubt that both the power of attorney givers had demised prior to the entry and attestation of these mutations. In the light of the present scenario further litigation on the basis of admission of this revision petition seems to be validly incoherent without cogent grounds. As far as the question of resolving such matters by the Civil Court, section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 visibly debars the Civil Courts from intervening into revenue matters. The maintenance of Revenue Record and its allied material is only for the purpose of creating the presumptive truth- through its entries not the final truth as the matters about the above referred mutations has rightly been resolved by the EDO (Rev.). I do not feel any justification to admit this revision petition hence it is dismissed in limine.