' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- The petitioner-Allah Ditta through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 5-10-2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench.
2. The relevant facts of the case are, that petitioner transferred his land measuring 232 Kanals to respondent No,1 Ghulam Muhammad vide Mutation No,164 sanctioned on 30-4-1963 and in exchange obtained 164 Kanals, 8 Marlas from respondent No,1 vide Mutation No,85, dated 15-6- 1963, which was further exchanged by the petitioner with respondents Nos.3 and 4 for their land measuring 140 Kanals, 12 Marlas evidenced through mutations of exchange bearing Nos.86 and 171 respectively attested on 15-6-1963 and 29-6-1964. Later on, vide his order, dated 5-1-1970 Collector Bahawalpur reviewed the said mutations on the ground of contravention of Martial Law Regulations Nos.64 of 1959. The order dated 5-1-1970 was challenged by respondent No,1 through a declaratory suit. The petitioner was party to the said suit and on the petitioner's consenting statement, the suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Bahawalpur vide his judgment and decree, dated 20-7-1976. On the basis of the said decree the Mutation in dispute No,283 was sanctioned on 11-8-1976. The petitioner's revision petition against the attestation of the said mutation in dispute, was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 16-2-1978. The petitioner, thereafter, moved a miscellaneous application on 8-3-1978 before the Court of Chief Land Commissioner Punjab, Lahore (respondent No,2) for setting aside the above-said Mutation No,283, dated 11-8-1976. In this application respondents Nos.3 and 4, with whom the petitioner had exchanged the land which was obtained by the petitioner from respondent No,1, were not made a party. The Chief Land Commissioner vide his order, dated 23-5-1978 accepted the petitioner's application. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-- "As a result of the above discussion, I accept this petition and direct that the Civil Court decree dated 26-7-1976 be ignored as being void and without jurisdiction and the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade sanctioning Mutation No,283, dated 11-8-1976 in pursuance of the same decree is hereby quashed."
' This order was assailed by respondent No,1 through Writ Petition No,22 of 1978 which has been allowed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench vide the impugned judgment dated 5-10-2000. The order, dated 23-5-1978, passed by respondent No,2 has been declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It has been held that (i) that the proceedings initiated before respondent No,2 were barred by time; (ii) that the petitioner was estopped from re-opening the matter in any manner as the above-said mutation in dispute was sanctioned in consequence of a Civil Court decree which had been passed with the consent of the petitioner, the same had attained finality and the petitioner was an active participant in the proceedings resulting in the attestation of mutations of exchange; (iii) the order passed by respondent No,2 was without jurisdiction as he could not exercise any revisional powers against the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 16-2-1978; (iv) the respondents Nos.3 and 4 were condemned unheard; and (v) the respondent No,2 was not clothed with any authority under the law to set aside a decree passed by a Civil Court, which could be set aside only in an appeal in the manner provided in the Civil procedure Code, 1908.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No,2 was fully empowered to act both under Martial Law Regulation No,64 of 1959 as Chief Land Commissioner and under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 as Member Board of Revenue of the Punjab and was competent to consider petitioner's application/revision, the order, dated 23-5-1978 passed by him was in accordance with law, transaction of exchange of land was in violation of the provision of para.25 of the repealed M.L.R., it was void and, therefore, the Civil Court decree was without jurisdiction, hence the respondent No,2 either as Chief Land Commissioner or on the Revenue side could competently issued directions for ignoring the said decree. It has further been argued that the land obtained by the petitioner in exchange has not so far been handed over to him.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force and this petition has no merit. The Mutation in dispute No,283 dated 11-8-1976 was attested by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, in consequence of the Civil Court decree dated 20-7-1976, which was passed with the consent of the petitioner. The Revenue Authorities are bound to act under the decree. They cannot ignore the same on any ground whatever. Similarly, the Land Reforms Authorities also cannot sit over the judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court. Respondent No,2, therefore, had no lawful authority to issue directions for ignoring the Civil Court decree and quashing the above said mutation in dispute which was sanctioned only in pursuance of the said decree. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, correctly declared the order, dated 23-5-1978 passed by respondent No,2 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Furthermore, the petitioner being party to exchange proceedings, could not be allowed to turn around and assail the said proceedings on a technicality. The Civil Court decree was passed with his consent. He was, therefore, estopped from re-opening the matter through a miscellaneous application before respondent No,2. In Ghulam Muhammad alias Ghulamoon v. Maula Dad and 6 others 1980 SCM R 314, it was held that the vendor therein could not rely on either para.25 of Martial Law Regulation No,64 of 1959 or on section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) so as to non-suit the purchasers. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. As regards the allegation of non-delivery of possession of land, which was transferred to petitioner in an exchange, by respondents Nos.3 and 4, suffice it to say that the said issue is not subject-matter of the present petition. It may be raised before proper forum(s).
' In view of the above-mentioned, we see no merit in this petition, which is dismissed with costs throughout and the leave is refused.