ORDER MUHAMMAD TARIQ AYUB CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) - This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two revision petitions as the question of facts and law involved are similar. Two revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 14.5.2008 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sialkot whereby he accepted the appeal of present respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Anayat representative of Bahria Foundation filed an application for correction of Revenue Record. District Officer (Revenue), Sialkot after report of the field staff ordered for review of mutations in dispute on 7.7.2007. Aggrieved by this order Muhammad Nawaz and Syed Zaheer Abbas Shah etc. Filed an appeal before E.D.O. (R), Sialkot who accepted the same on 14.5.2008. Hence these revision petitions.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier registered Sale-Deeds in favour of the petitioner/Bahria Foundation were not incorporated in the Revenue Record. Although it was mandatory upon the revenue staff to enter mutations in the light of sale-deeds. Due to non-entry in the record the original owner sold the property more than their share and thus paved way for litigation against the interest of the petitioner. He further contended that so far as the proceedings in the Civil Courts are concerned, they have no connection with the correction of entries in the Revenue Record but pertain to acquisition of rights by the parties on the basis of the change of title.
He prayed to accept the revision petitions and set aside the impugned order.
4. Counsel for respondents argued, that an irrelevant person Muhammad Anayat filed a petition before D.O. (R), Sialkot for correction of Revenue Record. The applicant never mentioned any mutation of which he required review. The mutation in dispute was sanctioned in favour of.
Respondents based on registered sale-deeds and could not be reviewed by the Revenue Courts.
He further argued that the matter is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. He prayed to dismiss the revision petitions and maintain the impugned order.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for parties and have also perused the record available on file. The mutations in dispute were sanctioned on the basis of registered sale- deeds, D.O. (R), Sialkot has no jurisdiction to cancel/review these mutations.
Moreover, parties are already approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction regarding the title of th land in dispute, In view of this, both the revision petitions are dismissed having no force.