CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. -- Brief facts of the case are that the suit land measuring 134 Kanals situated in village Donday, Tehsil and District, Lahore was transferred in the name of Taleh Mand vide Mutation No. 185, dated 16.5.1974. The said Taleh Mand died leaving behind him one son Farzand Ali and one daughter Mst. Khurshid Bibi. The estate of deceased Taleh Mand was devolved upon his son and daughter vide mutation of inheritance No. 186 on the same day and another mutation of sate bearing No. 187 was also attested on the same day i.e. 16.5.1974 whereby Mst.
Khurshid Bibi sold her share in the suit land to Farzand Ali, her real brother. Farzand Ali died in the year 1994. After the death of Farzand Ali, the said Mst. Khurshid Bibi challenged the mutation of sale No. 187 whereby the share of Mst. Khurshid Bibi was transferred by way of sale to her brother Farzand Ali. On. 14.12.1999, Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)/Collector, Lahore City accepted the appeal of Mst. Khurshid Bibi and cancelled the mutation of sale No. 187 in favour of his brother Farzand Ali. While dictating the order, the question of limitation was decided in the manner that since the mutation of. Sale bearing No. 187 was result of fraud, therefore, limitation do not run against a void order and with this observation, Mutation No. 187 was reviewed and cancelled.
2. The legal heirs of Farzand Ali filed appeal against the order dated 14.12.1999 before the Commissioner, Lahore Division which was also dismissed on 17.4.2001. The legal heirs of Farzand Ali further assailed the order of Commissioner, Lahore in the revision petition before the Board of Revenue which met the same-fate and vide order dated 30.9.2009, Mr. Muhammad Ayub Malik, learned Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Labors dismissed R.O.R. No. 668/2001. Feeling aggrieved, the legal heirs of Farzand Ali filed a suit of declaration before Civil Court on 28.10.2002.
The suit was contested by the parties and on 8.12.2004, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. The legal heirs of Farzand Ali further assailed the judgment and decree dated 8.12.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court in appeal which was accepted Additional District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.2005. Hence, this Civil Revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned judgment and decree dated 1.4.2005 is against law and facts. The learned Appellate Court misread the record of case and went beyond his jurisdiction. The learned Appellate Court has failed to apply its judicial mind. The impugned judgment and decree is nullity in the eyes of law and is not sustainable. He has emphasized more on the cross-examination of PW-1 who is Lamberdar who deposed that Mst. Khurshid Bibi put her thumb-impression in his presence while on the mutation, there is no mark of thumb- impression of Mst. Khurshid Bibi which shows that Mutation No. 187 was result of fraud and mis-representation and concealment of fact and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and disturb the concurrent findings of facts by the Revenue Authorities, therefore, Civil Revision be allowed and impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court be restored.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court and has contended that Civil Revision be dismissed with cost
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In the instant case, the question of jurisdiction and limitation are of paramount importance.
7. Admittedly, Mutations Nos. 185, 186 and 187 were sanctioned on 16.5.1974. Mst. Khurshid Bibi filed appeal on 14.1.1998 after about twenty-four, years of sanction of mutation. Section 161 of Land Revenue Act provides that appeal could be preferred to the Collector/D.O.R. (Revenue) within a period of thirty days from the date of original order passed by the Assistant Collector of either grade, It further provides that appeal against the order of Collector/D.O.R. (Revenue) to the Executive District Officer (Revenue) could be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of announcement of order' and finally appeal to the Board of Revenue could be filed within 90 days of the announcement of order. There is no concept that Revenue authorities can exercise their power in appeal after period prescribed under Section 161 of Land Revenue Act. Although Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay is applicable in the revenue matter but no such application was filed by Mst. Khurshid Bibi nor plausible grounds for condonation of delay were brought before the Revenue authorities and simply on appeal filed after lapse of twenty-four years it do not confer jurisdiction upon the Revenue Authorities to decided the share and title of the parties.
8. Record further reveals that Mst. Khurshid Bibi never challenged the mutation of sale in favour of Farzand Ali, Predecessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 11 till he remained alive. Farzand. Ali was died in the year 1994 and thereafter, Mst. Khurshid Bibi challenged the mutation of sale No:
187. The objection of learned counsel for the., petitioner that Mutation No. 187 was not entered in the Daily Diary of Patwari will have no adverse inference because Daily Diary of Patwari is not a part of Revenue Record. This diary is kept and maintained by Patwari just to show his activities and diligence.
Similarly, non-appearance of signatures or thumb-impression of Mst. Khurshid Bibi on pirth sarkar is not fatal because the mutation is not proof of title but it is an oral sale and it is not essential that vendor shall put his signature/thumb-impression on mutation. Admittedly, the possession is with the respondent.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that Mutations Nos. 185 and 186 were also sanctioned on the same day i.e. 16.5.1974. Their examination and attestation has never been challenged by the petitioner.
10. It has been repeatedly held by the superior Courts and similarly law itself provides that proceedings before the Revenue Officer or before the Revenue Court is of summary nature and whenever there is complicated question of law or fact is involved. The exclusive jurisdiction vests to the Civil Court to decide the same. The Revenue Authorities have exceeded from their jurisdiction and have erred while interfering in the complicated question of title. Longstanding entries qua the allegation of fraud should be dealt by the Civil Court because Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in such-like matters. Mutation being summary proceedings Revenue authorities could not clinch complicated matter in summary proceedings. As at the time of attestation of mutation, no detail evidence is recorded by Revenue Officer and it is the function of Civil Court to decide matters after framing of issues and recording of evidence of both the parties.
Reference is placed on case- law reported as 1990 CLC 1968, 1994 M LD 2254. Another important aspect of the case is that Mst. Khurshid Bibi miserably failed to produce any corroborative evidence in support of her version. Even she herself did not appear as a witness. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law and facts. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is devoid of merit. No interference is called for Hence same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Civil revision is deviod of merit No interference is called for Hence same is dismisse. No order as to costs.