1. MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.--- This appeal has been filed against the order of Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur dated 28-6-2008, whereby Issues Nos.1 to 5 were resolved against the present appellant.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents/applicants filed a reference before the Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur which was forwarded to the Reference Judge MDRP Mirpur for disposal under law. It was stated through the reference that the land bearing Khewat Nos.70, 72 and 73 situated at village Kalyal Shero Tehsil Mirpur was transferred in the names of the applicants as legacy of their mother Fatima Bibi. Mutation No.76 was endorsed as well. The appellant/respondent Khadim Hussain who is real maternal uncle of the applicants got attested a fictitious gift-deed on 10-10-1988 and the disputed land was transferred in his name on the basis of the said fictitious gift-deed without legal justification. Mutation No.84 dated 24-11-1990 was endorsed in his name. Later on, the said Khadim Hussain transferred the disputed land to his son Sajid Hussain through a gift-deed. The disputed land once again was transferred in the name of the said Khadim Hussain fraudulently through a decree of the court. It was further stated in the reference that the disputed land was acquired for raising of Mangla Dam Project and the compensation was assessed in the name of the respondent Khadim Hussain. The respondent has received the compensation fraudulently while the applicants were residing abroad. It was prayed to declare that the gift-deed dated 28-9-1998, Mutation No.84 dated 24-11-1996 and the entries in the Revenue Record made later on are null and void over the rights of the applicants. It was also prayed to declare that the compensation assessed on the basis of fictitious documents was paid to the respondent without any right, which might be paid to the applicants.
3. 3.The present appellant/respondent Khadim Hussain submitted objections, stating therein that the Reference Court has got no jurisdiction to hear the matter, the applicants have got no cause of action, the reference is not maintainable in the present shape, the Collector had no power to refer the impugned reference to the Reference Court and the reference was filed beyond the period of limitation. It was also stated that the Reference Judge has got no powers to cancel the gift-deed dated 28-9-1998 and the mutations endorsed later on. The assessment of the compensation was rightly made in the name of the respondent as he was the sole owner of the acquired land. The applicants (the present respondents) have got no right over the disputed land. The applicants submitted an application to implead them in the reference filed by the respondent, which was dismissed by the Reference Judge on 16-1-2008. The applicants have preferred a revision petition before the High Court, which is pending for disposal. It was prayed on behalf of the respondent to dismiss the reference.
4. 4.Issues were framed according to the version of the parties. The learned Reference Judge heard the arguments on Issues Nos.1 to 5 and resolved the said issues against the appellant/respondent.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.
6. 5.Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents objected primarily that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Reference Judge because the said order is revisable and not appealable. Mr. Shakeel Zaman Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant conceded the objection and requested to treat the instant appeal as a revision petition to meet the ends of justice and referred the following precedents in support of his request.
7. 1995 CLC 1578 and PLD 1995 Lah. 462 6.Firstly, the conversion of appeal into a revision petition has to be answered. It is an admitted principle of law that an appeal can be converted into a revision and a revision petition into an appeal provided the same is within period of limitation. This principle has been laid down in the above referred precedents. It has also been held in the precedent 1995 CLC 1578 that an appeal in question having been filed within period of limitation, conversion of the same into revision would have been in consonance with law, justice, equity and fair play.
8. In the present case, the present appeal was admittedly filed within prescribed period of limitation, so it can be converted into a revision petition. The circumstances of the case demand that request of conversion should be accepted to meet the ends of justice. So, the present appeal is hereby converted into a revision petition.
9. 7.Mr. Shakeel Zaman Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner Khadim Hussain argued further that the learned Reference Judge has got no powers to cancel the gift-deed and mutations or to declare the entries of Revenue Record as null and void over the rights of the applicants. This power can be exercised by a civil court only. The reference filed by the applicants does not fulfil the requirements of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Even the reference has been filed after 16 months of issuance of the award, which is hopelessly time barred. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition.
10. 8.While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Land Acquisition Act also empowers the Reference Judge to resolve the controversy of title as well, so the Reference Judge has got powers to cancel any gift-deed or other documents. The respondents have approached the civil court for cancellation of the impugned gift-deed, which is pending before the court of District Judge Mirpur. The Reference Judge has recorded his findings on Issues Nos.1 to 5 in accordance with the settled principle of law. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the revision petition.
11. 9.After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record available carefully and minutely. It is an admitted fact that the impugned gift- deed is a document, which is a backbone of the controversy between the parties. The present petitioner took this version that he became owner of the acquired land through the said gift-deed, which was executed in accordance with the provisions of law. On the other hand, the present respondents have taken this version that the said gift-deed was executed fictitiously and fraudulently. It is an admitted fact as well that a suit is pending before the District Judge Mirpur for cancellation of the said gift-deed. It is also an admitted principle of law that the Reference Judge can also exercise his powers to resolve the question of title of any property as well. Meaning thereby that the question of title has yet to be resolved by a competent forum. Both of the forums mentioned before are the competent forums to resolve the question of title of the acquired land. A civil court is always preferred over the other forums as minute and detailed scrutiny can only be made before a civil court.
12. 10.Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, no need is required to go into further details of merit of the case. It is just and proper to let the concerned civil court to resolve the controversy of title considering the impugned gift-deed first. So, the revision petition is accepted to the extent that the order of the Reference Judge under revision petition dated 28-6-2008 is hereby set aside. The proceedings pending before the learned Reference Judge shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of the controversy by the civil court. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner mentioned above.