' SARDAR MUHAMMAD AKRAM JAVED, member (JUDICIAL-III) --- The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 21.09.2006 of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan rejecting his appeal against the order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the District Officer (Revenue).
Multan through granting permission to review mutation Nos. 314, 205. 654, 671, 1007, 1122, 1521 and 1375.
2. Arguments heard and record perused. Learned counsels for the parties also submitted written arguments which have. Been perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that after the death of Mumtaz Hussain inheritance mutation No, 314, dated 30.05.1974 was sanctioned and land situated in Mauza Sheikli Pur Shajra, Tehsil Shujabad was alienated in the names of Rana Arshad and Imtiaz Hussain being legal heirs of the deceased. Thereafter, Imtiaz Hussain sold his land to Hasnain Abbas Sihah etc., present petitioners through mutation No, 454, dated 05.03.1983 and Rana Irshad also sold his land to Allah Dewaya. Later on, the said Allah Dewaya also sold the land to Hasnain Abbas Shah etc. Vide mutation No, 671, dated 05.06.1988: The petitioners sold some land to various persons and some portion.Of and was alienated in the name of their sons. Arshad Ahmad filed a suit for declaration with the contention that Muhammad Rafiq was not his brother which was dismissed on 30.10.1998.
Appeal filed against that order was dismissed and Civil Revision was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 08.02.2000. The said order Was assailed in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through appeal which was rejected vide order dated 12.05.2003. Subsequently, Muhammad Rafiq, respondent No, 1 submitted application to the District Officer (Revenue), Multan for review of mutation No, 314, dated 3.0.05.1974. The District Officer (Revenue), Multan obtained a report from the revenue field staff and after due deliberation, the sac application was accepted on 20.05.2006.
The present petitioners assailed that order in the Court of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan through appeal wherein he observed that the Tehsildar could not review a mutation without hearing contention of the petitioners. However, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2006. The Tehsildar was legally bound to at least give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before review of the mutation No, 314. The Tehsildar alienated the land of the petitioners in the name of Muhammad Rafiq, present respondent through mutation No, 2606, dated 30.09.2006 with the .Observation that this mutation was sanctioned in compliance with the orders passed by the Civil Court and other higher Courts. The petitioners filed appeal and revision petition to set aside the mutation No, 2606, dated 30.09.2006 but the same could not prove fruitful. The suit for declaration filed by Irshad. Hussain against Muhammad Rafiq was dismissed which was mis- construed by the Tehsildar as decree. Muhammad Rafiq never filed any suit. Muhammad Rafiq submitted an application dated 02.10.2003 before the Civil Judge, Shujabad for execution of order dated 30.10.1998. The Civil Judge clarified on 14.04.2009 that order dated 30.10.1998 was not passed in favour of Muhammad Rafiq. Appeal filed against that order was dismissed on 03.06.2009. The cancellation of mutation No, 314 without hearing the petitioners and sanction. Of mutation No, 2606, dated 30.09.2006 was against provisions of Section 163 of the .Land Revenue Act, 1967. On the force of above arguments, acceptance of the revision petition was requested.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that proper remedy available to the petitioners was appeal to be filed in the Court Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Shujabad against the mutation No, 2606, dated 30:09.2006 which was not availed by them. Instead of filing appeal, they filed a revision petition in this Court which was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on PLD 1981 Rev. 15, PLD 1982 Rev. 8, PLD 1950 Punjab Rev. 170 and PLD 1959 W.P. (Rev.)
97. Under the law, no appeal or revision was provided against the review, therefore, the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Reyenue),. Multan was quite legal and in compliance with the orders of Civil Court which was upheld upto the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The contention of the petitioners that no order was passed in favour of the respondent No, 1 was baseless. Moreover, the execution petition of the respondent No, 1 was duly accepted whereby the respondent No, 1 received an amount of Rs, 20,000/- from the respondent No,
2. However, the learned Judge give observation regarding possession on the hand. That "remaining relief cannot be grained in this execution petition. Learned Judge never declared that the respondent No, 2 was not decree-holder and he could not get implementation of the same in the revenue record. The stance taken by the petitioners in their written arguments was based on conjectures and surmises which was plethora of lies. According to Articles 189 & 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, all the judgments passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding upon all the lower Courts/ forums. The orders assailed in the revision petition were passed in compliance with the order of the Civil Court which was upheld upto the level of august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Finally it was prayed that the revision petition may fee dismissed.
6. Upshot of the arguments is that District Officer (Revenue), Multan in permission to review above- mentioned mutations and Executive Director Officer (Revenue), Multan ordered Tehsildar to hear the parties under Section 163 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and pass appropriate order. Both the orders are legal. If in the consequence of these orders, Tehsildar commits any wrong and any party is aggrieved thereof the same is liable to appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue)
Shujabad. No justification to interfere with the orders of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan dated 21.09.2006 & District Officer (Revenue), Multan dated 20.05.2005. The revision petition is hereby dismissed and orders are upheld. ROR dismissed.