' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---The land in dispute was owned by Muhammad Asif, respondent No.4 and his mother Mst. Saleem Akhter, respondent No.5. They alienated the same in favour of Muhammad Khalil, petitioner by means of separate Mutations Nos.601 and 607 respectively. The above-named original owners/vendors appeared before Ch. Muhammad Altaf, Naib Tehsildar, respondent No.3 and made statements to the effect that after having received the total sale price they parted with their possession over the sold land and handed over the same to the petitioner/vendee. The respondent-Naib Tehsildar sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioner-vendee. It is important to note that the lady who claimed to be Mst. Saleem Akhtar before the Naib Tehsildar while making her statement in favour of the petitioner had been identified by her son. Muhammad Asif, respondent. After acquiring interest in the disputed land through above-said mutations of sale, the petitioner herein further alienated the same in favour of Adil Hussain and Sajid Hussain (not party to this petition). Raja Muhammad Rashid (not party to this petition), a brother of Muhammad Asif, respondent sued the subsequent transaction through pre-emption before the learned Civil Court at Gujjar Khan.
2. After termination of the mutation proceedings to the above effect, Muhammad Asif and his mother Mst. Saleem Akhtar, respondents made separate applications/complaints before the respondent-Revenue Officer with an allegation that Muhammad Khalil, petitioner, vendee had deprived them of their landed property fraudulently. Contention of Muhammad Asif, respondent before the respondent-Revenue Officer was that another woman had personated herself as Mst.
Saleem Akhtar and that he (Muhammad Asif respondent) had identified her as his mother before the respondent-Revenue. Officer. Mst. Saleem Akhtar, respondent also adopted the above-said version of her son Muhammad Asif. Muhammad Asif asserted in his application that he sold the land in favour of Muhammad Khalil, petitioner for Rs.3,00,000 out of which only Rs.90,000 had been paid to him and that he made a statement of receipt of total sale price before the Revenue Officer on the assurance and asking of Muhammad Khalil, petitioner that he would make payment of the balance amount later on. The respondent-Revenue Officer took cognizance of the above said complaints by the vendors, recorded evidence and not only reviewed his earlier orders on the mutations of sale but also got registered case F.I.R. No.42, dated 21-1-2008 under sections 468/471/419/420, P.P.C. At Police Station Gujjar Khan, Distt. Rawalpindi.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Khalil, petitioner/vendee/accused has filed constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Seeking qnashment of the impugned F.I.R.
4. Before adverting to the merits or de-merits of the controversy I find it advantageous to bring on record the facts, which are not in dispute or disputable:--
(a) The land in dispute was owned by Muhammad Asif and his mother Mst. Saleem Akhter, respondent.
(b) A woman who posed and introduced herself as Mst. Saleem Akhtar before the respondent- Revenue Officer had been identified by Muhammad Asif, respondent who is admittedly real son of Mst. Saleem Akhtar, Muhammad Asif respondent appeared before the respondent-Naib Tehsildar and made a statement that after having received the total sale price of the sold land he delivered possession to Muhammad Khalil, petitioner-vendee.
(c) The respondent-Revenue Officer sanctioned the mutations in favour of Muhammad Khalil, petitioner after recording statements of the vendors.
(d) A brother of Muhammad Asif respondent pre-empted the sale through pre-emption which had subsequently been made by Muhammad Khalil, petitioner.
5. For the sake of arguments, if it is admitted for a moment that some woman personated herself as Mst. Saleem Akhtar before respondent-Naib-Tehsildar, then an important question arises as to why Muhammad Asif, respondent was introduced as star prosecution witness by the respondent- Naib Tehsildar and the investigator without asking him as to why he identified a fake woman as his own mother. The respondent-Revenue Officer could not identify and locate the woman who allegedly personated herself as Mst. Saleem Akhtar before him despite the fact that it was the contention of Muhammad Asif, respondent that he identified a fake woman as his own mother before the Revenue Officer. In other words Muhammad Asif abetted and facilitated the commission of alleged offence punishable under section 419, P.P.C. As per his own version. The most shocking aspect of the matter is that Muhammad Asif, respondent himself admitted that he identified a fake woman as his mother but he was treated as star prosecution witness not only by the Revenue Officer but also by the police.
6. Muhammad Asif, respondent admittedly appeared before the respondent-Revenue Officer and made a statement on the basis of which the mutation had been sanctioned. After attestation of the mutation he came forward beforethe same Revenue Officer with a different story. The respondent-Revenue Officer accepted and believed the changed and re-shaped version of Muhammad Asif, respondent and cancelled the mutations by exercising his powers under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. A bare perusal of the provisions of section 163 of the Act would show that an order by the Revenue Officer can only be reviewed if new and important evidence is discovered, which after the exercise of due diligence was_ not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or on account of some mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. The case in hand does not qualify the legal test laid down by section 163 ibid. No new evidence had been discovered. As per changed version of Muhammad Asif, respondent it was in his knowledge that the woman claming to be Mst. Saleem Akhtar before the Revenue Officer was not his mother.
At the cost of repetition, I would say that it was the case of Muhammad Asif, respondent before the respondent-Revenue Officer that he identified a fake woman as his mother. There was no legal controversy as to the payment of sale price. Initially Muhammad Asif, respondent admitted before the Revenue Officer that he received the total sale price from the petitioner-vendee. Later on he introduced another version that the vendee did not pay him the total sale price. Without recording evidence and without full-fledged trial, it was/is not possible to say with certainty as to which of the two versions of Muhammad Asif, respondent was true. The respondent-Revenue Officer was possessed with no yardstick enabling him to say that the changed version of Muhammad Asif was true particularly when he (Muhammad Asif) admitted in writing that he had identified a fake woman as his mother. The available record does not show as to why the respondent-Revenue Officer accepted the re-shaped version of Muhammad Asif, respondent as gospel truth.
7. The mutations were entered and sanctioned under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. It is an established principle of law subject to no exception that the proceedings under section 42 supra are of summary nature and any controversy requiring a regular trial or recording of evidence goes beyond the scope. Of the summary proceedings under section 42 of the Act. I am unable to understand as to how and with what authority the respondent-Revenue Officer assumed the role of civil Court.
8. The points in issue before the respondent-Naib Tehsildar, which emerged after the changed and re-shaped version of Muhammad Asif and her mother, respondents-herein, were as to whether Muhammad Asif, respondent identified his own mother or a fake woman before the Revenue Officer and as to whether he received the total sale price of the land as stated by him in his earlier statement before the respondent Revenue Officer or he received part payment as per his changed version. It was/is impossible to answer these questions summarily. As a matter of fact the respondent-Revenue Officer believed the changed version of Muhammad Asif, respondent without any basis and beyond the scope of his jurisdiction under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
9. The Revenue Officer has attempted to explain his position that his orders reviewing the sanctioned mutations still hold the field and that the petitioner cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against the said orders.
10. For multiple reasons this Court is of the view that the contention is mis-conceived. Firstly, for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, I have no doubt in my mind that subsequent orders passed by the respondent-Revenue Officer being nullity in the eyes of law must be ignored.
This Court can exercise its inherent powers under section 56 Cr.P.C. To prevent the abuse of process of law and to advance the interest of justice and to protect the rights of the citizens guaranteed by law and the Constitution. In the case in hand, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, on the basis of facts admitted and patent, on record and in such circumstances allowing the prosecution or investigating agency to continue with the investigation would amount to abuse of process of law. While exercising inherent powers the only criterion would be whether the continuance of the investigation before the police at the instance of the respondent-Revenue Officer would be a futile exercise, wastage of time and abuse of process of law or not. In the case in hand the respondent-Revenue Officer misused his official position in a crude form and in the circumstances it would be unjust to allow the police to drag the petitioner in frivolous litigation.
11. For what has been stated above, I have no doubt in my mind that the respondents joined hands with each other to avoid the legal consequences of the mutations sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent orders of the respondent-Revenue Officer by means of which he reviewed his earlier orders and got registered a criminal case are not sustainable being illegal, without lawful authority and motivated. therefore, herefore, allow this constitutional petition and quash the impugne F.I.R.
12. Before parting with this order, I must say that the respondent-Revenue Officer played havoc with the system of Revenue Administration. He cancelled his earlier orders by exercising power in a crude manner not vesting in him obviously for some considerations extraneous to the record. Here I would say that the victim of Government functionaries action should not be left to their mercy.
During the course of arguments the petitioner stated that he spent Rs.50,000 in prosecuting his case and cause before the Court of Session and this Court. By exercising the inherent jurisdiction, I direct the respondent-Revenue Officer to pay Rs.50,000 to the petitioner in 10 equal monthly installments each of Rs.5000. The E.D.O.R., Rawalpindi and the Distt. Accounts Officer, Rawalpindi are directed to deduct Rs.5000 from the salary of the respondent-Revenue Officer each month and ensure its deposit in the bank account of the petitioner under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.