' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J---Abdul Jalil petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 17-1-2011, passed by the learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Nankana Sahib whereby S.H.O. Of the Police Station concerned was directed to record the version of the petitioner Rana Atta Ullah Khan (respondent No,3 herein).
2. Rana Atta Ullah Khan in an application filed under section 22-A/B, Cr.P.C. Submitted that one Naseer Ahmad had gifted his land measuring one kanal to Madrassa Taleem and Tehfeez-ul- Quran and construction was undertaking over that plot in the supervision of Hafiz Muhammad Ali. It was further alleged that in the year 2007, the said Naseer Ahmad was taken by Abdul Jalil and others to Patwari Halqa and got the mutation attested in their names in respect of land allotted to Madrassa. It was alleged that commission of cognizable offence is made out, thus prayed for a direction in this connection. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace accepted the application and issued direction as prayed for.
3. Parties heard.
4. Naseer Ahmad, had transferred the land in favour of Abdul Jalil vide Mutation No,1666 dated 10- 9-2004. The said mutation was attested in the public meeting by Tehsildar and both the parties were identified by Malik Zahoor Ahmad, Nazim, Union Council and others. In such like situation, when there is a document of title in favour of a person, attested in a public meeting then it cannot be said that the mutation was obtained by coercion or fraudulently. It was Naseer Ahmad, who may approach the civil court with the allegation that the mutation in question was got attested from him fraudulently and by practicing fraud .But he did not come to the court for this purpose. He has also not challenged the mutation before the revenue authority on the similar grounds. The learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace in these circumstances, is duty bound to hear both the parties before issuing any direction to the local police for registration of case which not only save the party from agony but would also be helpful in reducing the frivolous, litigation. The court has wholly acted upon the application of the respondent without looking into real facts, therefore, the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is declared of no legal effects and is set aside accordingly. Pursuant to this, application filed by respondent No,3 under section 22-A/B, Cr.P.C. Is also dismissed.