' SYED EJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Repubfic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner Allah Bakhsh has assailed the orders dated 28-9- 2009, 154-2011 and 7-7-2011 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal (Respondent No.3), Executive District Officer (Revenue); Khanewal (Respondent No,2) and the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (Respondent No.1), respectively.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition are that Mst. Sullan Bibi/respondent No,4, and her mother Mst. Namat Bibi challenged mutation No: 793 attested on 12-7-1979, Mouza Sarai Sidhu Tehsil Kabirwala whereby, their shares in the inheritance of their prede'cessor Allah Yar given under mutation No,644 attested on 18-11-1977 were reduced. They prayed for a declaration that the entries incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of the impugned mutation were illegal and ineffective upon their rights which were liable to correction and they further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of the property in question in any manner. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court on 27-74987 but the same was decreed in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs which was accepted by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Khanewal on 2-6-1991. The defendants filed -C.R.No,379-D/91 against the order of the learned Appellate Court which was dismissed by this Court bn 7-11-2006. The judgment debt's filed C.P.L.A No,121 of 2007 against the judgment of this Court which was dismissed on 15-4-2010.
Thereafter, the decree holder Mst. Sallan, filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal for the implementation of the judgment & decree dated 2-6-1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Khanewal which, as mentioned supra, had remained intact up-till the august Supreme Court of Pakistan praying for the cancellation of the mutation No,793 and for entering and attesting a fresh mutation in compliance of the judgment & decree and the District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal granted permission for the correction of the revenue record in accordance with the above said decree of the learned civil court. The petitioner Allah Bakhsh assailed the said order dated 28-9-2009 of the District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal, through an appeal which was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khanewal on 15-4-2011 which order was impugned by the petitioner and respondents Nos.9 to 12 before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and vide order dated 7-7-2011 passed in R.O.R No,730 of 2011 Member (Judicial-Ill), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore dismissed the revision petition. The stance of the petitioner and respondents Nos.9 to 12 before, the aforesaid revenue authorities was throughout this, that the decree holder could not get the declaratory decree in question implemented by the revenue authorities and the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to implement the judgment & decree of the civil court which was passed in a declaratory suit.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of respondents Nos.1 to 3, the petitioner has assailed the said orders through this writ petition.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the plaintiffs obtained a declaratory decree in their favour, therefore, the same was not executable and the revenue officers had no authority to implement the decree in the revenue record. The learned counsel has relied on 2002 YLR 2533, 2002 YLR 1302 and 1991 MLD 1681.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the plaintiff Mst. Sullan Bibi and her mother Mst. Namat Bibi, through their suit, had challenged mutation No,793 attested on 12-7-1979 relating to Mouza Sarai Sidhu, Tehsil Kabirwala District Khanewal whereby, their shares in the inheritance of their predecessor Allah Yar given to them vide mutation No,644 attested on 18-11-1977, were reduced and they had prayed for a declaration that the entries incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of the impugned mutation i,e, mutation No,793, were illegal and ineffective upon their rights. Which were liable to correction and they had further prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of the property in question in any manner. As mentioned supra, their suit was decreed in appeal by a learned Addl. District Judge, Khanewal on 12-6-1991 which judgment and decree remained intact uptill the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thereafter, the decree holder Mst. Sullan Bibi filed an application before the District Officer (R.) Khanewal for the implementation of the judgment and decree dated 2-6-1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Khanewal by cancelling mutation No,793 and entering and attesting a fresh mutation which application was accepted on 28-9-2009 and that order of the D.O.(R), Khanewal remained intact up-till the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The sole question requiring disposal in this writ petition is "as to whether a declaratory decree passed in a civil suit by a civil court has to be given effect to' by the revenue authorities concerned or not". Section 45 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides for the making of such entries in a record of rights or in a periodical record which are supported by a decree or order.
7. As held in Khushi Muhammad and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others (1992 CLC 125 Lahore), Revenue officer is under obligation to correct and bring up to date revenue records in conformity with the binding adjudications of civil courts, who alone are arbiters of Civil rights of the parties and the provision of section 45, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 provides that entries in record of rights will not be altered in subsequent record otherwise than by making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred, making such entries as were supported by a decree or order binding on those parties. It has been further held that it is not the function of a revenue officer to review and scrutinize a decree of the civil court and question its correctness. Revenue officer must accept decree of civil court and act upon it to give effect to it in revenue record.
8. In another case reported as Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Fateh Sher 2008 SCMR 1658 it has been held that the decrees of civil courts are binding upon revenue officers.
9. In Abdul Hameed, Ex-Patwari v. Member (Revenue) and 3 others 2005 SCMR 1617 = 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1367 it has been held that the revenue officers are bound to give effect to the decree of the civil court and the revenue staff cannot go beyond a decree, hence, the impugned orders do not call for any interference.
10. As regards the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is distinguishable on facts and law.
11. In case titled Muhammad Aslam v. Member Board of Revenue (2002 YLR .1302), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff had filed a suit against Province of Punjab, A.C.
Saddar District Sahiwal and one Abdul Sattar for a declaration that he was in possession of a plot by -virtue of being an allottee thereof and by way of consequential relief, he had prayed that defendant No,2 be perpetually restrained from changing entries in the revenue record thereby showing respondent No,3 as owner of the said plot and all the respondents be restrained from denying plaintiff's ownership or from interfering in his possession. The said suit was decreed on 8- 6-1994 and on 30-7-1999, decree holder moved an application to the Tehsildar, Sahiwal for implementing the said decree by attesting a mutation on the basis thereof in his favour and incorporating his ownership in the revenue record qua the plot in question. The decree holder filed a writ petition maintaining that Tehsildar, Sahiwal was not performing his statutory duty and that he was bound to implement the said decree. It was held that the petitioner had the remedy of filing an execution petition before the court which had passed the decree under Order XXI, Rule 10 of C.P.C. It was further held that the first portion of the decree :was purely a declaratory decree and as such could not be executed and as regards the second portion whereby, judgments debtors had been restrained and had been forbidden to interfere in the possession but no complaint was made that any of the judgment debtors had denied title of the decree holder or interfered with his possession. It was further held that issuance of mandatory injunction was neither prayed for in the plaint nor the said relief was granted by the court and the writ petition was dismissed.
12. The case-law Kabir Hussain and 3 others v. Mst. Iqbal Bibi and 2 others (1991 MLD 1681) is also not helpful to the petitioner. In that case, the plaintiffs had challenged a compromise deed on the basis of which a prior declaratory suit between the parties had been decreed in terms of the compromise deed. The defendants objected to the maintainability of the suit contesting that there was a clear bar in section 47, C.P.C. To the effect that all question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree would be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate, suit. It was held that section 47 of the C.P.C. Was not applicable to declaratory decrees passed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, hence, the suit was maintainable.
13. As regards case-law Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Muhammad Sadiq (2003 CLC 1318) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no decree was passed in the suit which was a declaratory suit and which was disposed of on the statement of the defendant that he would not make any construction on the suit property, hence, it was held that proceedings could be initiated under Order XXI, rule 32, C.P.C. Only where a party against whom, a decree had been passed, had wilfully failed to obey the decree.
14. In view of the above discussion, there is no force in this writ IC petition which is dismissed in limine.