Sheikh Hakim Ali, J.--A society of just people promotes justice while a dishonest litigant multiplies the cases by his destructive efforts. The case in hand is the manifestation of second category of person, who had pleaded the violation of provision of Martial Law Regulation of 1959, for his own ends, after having sold out the land by himself, for valuable consideration. He made it an excuse for his evil and nefarious design to retrieve the land sold by him.
2. Facts and events of the instant case are expanding over a span of 41 years, which had commenced when Abdul Hakeem, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No, 2 to 6, sold out 7 kanals 12 marlas of land, out of his total holding of 42 kanals 19 marlas, situated in Chak No, 67/JB, Tehsil and District, Faisalabad, through Mutation No, 454, sanctioned on 13.11.1967 for an amount of Rs, 9,500/- for the construction of a house and for establishing a Poultry Farm. This sale was made in favour of Muhammad Ramzan, present Respondent No,
7. Thereafter aforementioned Respondent No, 7, Muhammad Ramzan, agreed to sell the aforementioned land in favour of. M/s Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Siddique and Co. (Regd.) through an agreement to sell dated 8.1.1970 to which Abdul. Hakeem was also a signatory of it as a marginal witness. This agreement was transformed into a completed sale and became evident in the form of Mutation No, 637 attested on 14.6.1970. In the year 1975, Abdul Hakeem, the vendor filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Lyallpur, for review of these Mutations No, 454 dated 13.11.1967 and 637 sanctioned on 14.6.1970, on the ground that Mutation No, 454 dated 13.11.1967, was sanctioned in contravention of the provision of MLR No, 64 (1959), as Muhammad Ramzan purchaser was not an owner in the Chak, therefore, both these mutations might be cancelled. Upon this petition, Assistant Commissioner/Collector prepared a report on 23.4.1975 and transmitted it to, the District Collector with prayer for grant of permission to review these mutations, which permission was granted by the learned Deputy Commissioner/District Collector on 25.4.1975, within two days from the receipt of the aforesaid report. The aforesaid Assistant Commissioner/Collector, upon review cancelled the above noted mutations and got sanctioned two Mutations No 898 and 899 for return of the above noted land in dispute in favour Abdul Hakeem. Ultimately, after a long chain of litigation in revenue erarchy, Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Faisalabad passed the order on 23.6.1981, upholding Mutation Nos, 898 and 899, which had cancelled the earlier sale transactions amongst Abdul Hakeem, Muhammad Ramzan and M/s M. Saleem & Co. This order of District Collector became the cause of present litigation as M/s M. Saleem and Co. instituted the suit to obtain declaration that plaintiff was owner in possession of the land in dispute and the order dated 23.6.1981 passed by D.C/District Collector was illegal, void, etc. with grant of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No, 1, Abdul Hakeem, for acting upon the impugned order and claiming any right, title to the land or proclaiming himself owner of it. This suit was contested by the parties by tooth and nail. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 26.2.1985. Appeal carried against that judgment and decree also failed before the learned District Judge on 5.7.1986. But, before learned High Court, plaintiff was granted the relief as the civil revision therein succeeded on 29.6.2000 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. But present appeal after grant of leave has been filed by Bashir Ahmed, instead of successors-in-interest of Abdul Hakeem.
3. It is also worth mentioning that Abdul Hakeem earlier to the above noted suit, had also instituted a suit challenging the mutations of sale but had ultimately withdrawn it.
4. It is pertinent to point out that Bashir Ahmed, the present , appellant, had entered into this arena of litigation before the learned High Court, when he had made an exchange of his land in lieu of the disputed land with Abdul Hakeem, the aforementioned vendor, through Mutation No, 2205 dated 3.3.1985. Meanwhile, Abdul Hakeem expired and his legal representatives were impleaded during the pendency of revision petition, before the learned High Court.
5. Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC appearing on behalf of appellant, Bashir Ahmed, submits that the learned High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below, which was not permissible in the eye of law. Further submits that Assistant Commissioner/Collector was not made party to the suit although his order dated 23.6.1981 was being assailed in it. Even Bashir Ahmed was also not impleaded in the suit, therefore, the suit was defective and was liable to be dismissed. He has challenged the validity of judgment of the learned High Court, by stating that the learned civil Court including the High Court had got no jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by Land Reforms Authorities. He has referred to Para 27 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1959 (MLR-64) and Para 26 of M.L.R. No, 115 (Land Reforms of 1972) which have prohibited the exercise of jurisdiction by any Court including the High Court and the Supreme Court, with regard to any order made thereunder (under the Land Reforms Regulations of 1959 or of 1972). Referring to clause (d) of subpara (2) of Para 32 of the Land Reforms Regulations of 1972 (MLR-115), the learned counsel submits that the investigation, legal proceedings or remedies can be instituted, continued or enforced even after repeal of MLR No, 64 (1959) under the aforementioned sub-para of the Land Reforms Regulation of 1972. Therefore, the order of Deputy Commissioner/District Collector dated 23.6.1981 could not be questioned in the hierarchical set up of civil Courts. The impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of the High Court may be declared without jurisdiction by setting aside that and the judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, may be upheld and affirmed.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 has opposed the augments of appellant's learned counsel. As per learned counsel Bashir Ahmed, appellant had made an exchange of the land in dispute through Mutation No, 2205 on 3.3.1985, with Abdul Hakeem, during the pendency of the present litigation, therefore, he had got no right to be impleaded and heard in the case. As regards the other contentions raised by the appellant's learned counsel, he has supported the reasons contained in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel at length, examined the record and have given our deeper thoughts to the contentions of both the learned counsel. It is interesting to note that Bashir Ahmed who had allegedly made an exchange of the land through Mutation No, 2205 dated 3.3.1985, was not originally party to the previous proceedings as well as at the time of institution of the present suit in the civil Court. He had jumped into the proceedings during the revision pending before the learned High Court after his predecessor-in-interest, Abdul Hakeem had substituted him for his own stead to contest. Therefore, Bashir Ahmed has got no independent and separate right to claim an opportunity of hearing, contest, or to be impleaded in the proceedings, as he had not entered into the process of this litigation through the permission of the- Court. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which has brought into existence the rule of lis pendens with its clear intent on this point was prohibiting to take this contest by claiming an independent right to the proceedings. As stated above, Bashir Ahmed has come into picture after the institution of the suit, while Abdul Hakeem or his successors-in-interest from whom he claims exchange, have not joined hands with him to file the instant appeal. In other words, Abdul Hakeem or his successors-in- interest have displayed their satisfaction over the impugned judgment delivered by the learned High Court. Therefore, the present appellant, Bashir Ahmed, has got no independent right to claim the setting aside of the impugned judgment and cannot be allowed to do so. It may be kept in view that exchange is being claimed by Bashir Ahmed, not the sale of the land in dispute.
8. Even otherwise, we are not satisfied with the attitude and conduct of Abdul Hakeem in whole of the proceedings. He was the person who had sold out the land in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan, for a valuable consideration in the year 1967. We have also noted that in the agreement dated 8.1.1970, which was entered between Muhammad Ramzan and M/s Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Siddique and Co. (Regd.), he was also signatory to it as a marginal witness. After happening of all these events, Abdul Hakeem had no legs to stand so as to commence the proceedings for cancellation of Mutation Noos. 454 and 637 dated 13.11.1967 and 14.6.1970, respectively, by filing a Miscellaneous Application for the review of these mutations. He was privy to the contract of sale, which sale was upheld when his suit for declaration challenging that sale was also dismissed, after he had withdrawn it as admitted by DW. 1 attorney of Abdul Hakeem, in his statement in an earlier round of litigation. Moreover, this application for review of the mutations, mentioned above, was clearly and badly barred by time, if examined from the angle of the provision of Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation of 1967 or keeping in view the Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land, Reforms Rules of 1959, or Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules of 1972.
9. Questions arise as to whether against Mutation No, 454 dated 13.11.1967 and Mutation No, 637 dated 14.6.1970 provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation of 1959 or of 1972, could be invoked so as to brand it having been sanctioned in violation of the provision of Martial Law Regulation or the Land Reforms Authorities had got the jurisdiction to declare it as such and to set aside these mutations? Answer to these questions was provided in a learned Division Bench judgment reported in 1984 CLC (Kar) 737 (Saifuddin v. Member, Federal Land Commission) in which it was held that both the above mentioned Regulations had not provided any forum to entertain an application filed by private persons to examine the validity of a private alienation, to hold it that it had reduced the prescribed subsistence or economic holding.
10. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Court, as provided in Para 27 of 1959 MLR and Para 26 of 1972 MLR was to be extended when Land Commission or its delegatees were shown empowered by these MLRs to entertain and adjudicate upon such application, upon a dispute between private parties, otherwise, it could not be invoked and applied. It is also worth notable that the Land Revenue Authorities had sanctioned the disputed Mutations, therefore, the order of sanctioning of mutation having not been passed by the Land Reforms Authorities could not be challenged before those authorities. From the perusal of application filed by Abdul Hakeem, no such jurisdiction of Land Reforms Authorities was ever invoked by him. The impugned order dated 23.6.1981 has also not displayed any such power of any Land Reforms Authority having been exercised by the Revenue authority. It is also worth consideration that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Faisalabad, when had passed the order on 23.6.1981, he had got no power of review under Land Reforms Rules. Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules of 1972 granting power of review was put to an end on 30.4.1975. It is also evident from the reading of these Rules that Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules of 1959 and Rule 12 of the Punjab Land. Reforms Rules of 1972, it was incumbent for a party interested to seek review of an order passed, to file a review petition within 10 days and 20 days, respectively, under these Rules, from the date of an impugned order. Admittedly, the application for the review was filed by Abdul Hakeem after more than eight years of the attestation of Mutation No, 454 dated 13.11.1967. Therefore, it can be safely held that power of review could not be exercised under any provision of Land Reforms Regulation by the Land Reforms Authorities in the present case. The tenor of the impugned order itself displays that Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Act was being sought to be applied to review the mutations in dispute. As noted above, this section was providing a period of ninety days limitation for filing of review petition from the impugned sanction of the mutation. If the provision of Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Act, was invoked, even then the petition was hopelessly barred by time and could not be entertained by the Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Collector or the Deputy Commissioner/ District Collector. No application for the condonation of delay was filed and no request for the condonation of the delay was made in that behalf by the applicant. Valuable rights having accrued to Muhammad Ramzan and his subsequent vendee could not be taken away, on the basis of a time barred application, which was clearly based on malafide and upon the dishonest conduct of Abdul Hakeem petitioner. The aforesaid Abdul Hakeem was not entitled to be granted any right to get these mutations cancelled. From the first transaction, he had benefited himself by receiving an amount of Rs, 9,500/- from Muhammad Ramzan. He having represented himself to the vendee impliedly if not explicitly that the transfer of sale was not illegal. Therefore, the provision of MLRs could not clothe him with a right to challenge it afterward. He had also consented in the sale transaction being made by Muhammad Ramzan through Mutation No, 637 in favour of M/s. Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Siddique and Co. (Regd.). Such dishonest person should have been discouraged to get the sale transaction cancelled, wherefrom he had benefited himself. If the plea of such person is accepted, it would in fact tantamount to grant him premium for his own fraud which he was going to commit with his vendee. Equity also does not allow such a course to be adopted. 1986 MLD 431 (Noor Samad u. Muhammad Aslam) can be cited to support this view.
11. As noted above, the District Collector had no power of review to exercise it under any Land Reforms Regulations or under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 to pass the impugned order of 23.6.1981, therefore, the above order could competently be challenged before the learned civil Court and no provision of the Land Reforms Regulations, it may be Para 27 of the MLR of 1959 or Para 26 of MLR-115 of 1972, particularly after these provisions having been validated by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and partaking an ordinary law of the land, could not bar the learned civil Court to entertain such suit and adjudicate upon the vires of order dated 23.6.1981 of the learned D.C./District Collector, Faisalabad.
12.As regards objection of the learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector was not impleaded as a party in the civil suit, suffice it to say that the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector had got no interest in the land or in suit proceedings, as the matter was between private parties and the interest of the Government was not involved therein, so the suit was rightly entertained and decided by the learned Court below without his impleadment. No such objection was also raised in the written statement that Deputy Commissioner/District Collector was a necessary party to the proceedings of the suit.
13.Accordingly, we have found no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.