' SARDAR MUHAMMAD AKRAM JAVED, MEMBER --- This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2010 of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan whereby he accepted the appeal of the present respondents against the order of District Officer (Revenue), Multan whereby he granted permission for implementation of the sale certificate issued by Civil Court on 07.10.2000 in respect of property No, 640 named Qureshi. Ward No,
21. Situated in Kh. No, 557 chowk Kumharanwala Khanewal Road Multan after reviewing mutations No, 43588 and 43652.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners and respondents were declared the purchaser of the property No, 640, Khasra No, 557, measuring 5- Marlas, situated in Chah Kumharan Wala, Mauza Taraf Juma Khalsa, Khanewal Road, Multan as sale certificate dated 07.10.2000 was issued in favour of petitioners/ respondents by the Civil Judge, Multan. Thereafter, they filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Multan for implementation of the sale certificate in the revenue record who after obtaining report from the revenue field staff, filed that application vide order dated 31.01.2004 with the observation that execution proceedings were pending in the Civil Court. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan which was disposed of on 24.03.2004 with the direction to the petitioners/respondents to get first decided their application from the District Officer (Revenue), Multan. However, on ,application of the petitioners/respondents, the District Officer (Revenue), Multan granted permission for review of mutation Nos. 43652 and 43688 for implementation of the said sale certificate vide order dated 26.05.2004 and two mutation Nos.
47476 and 47477 were sanctioned on 7.8.2004. The appeal of the respondents filed an appeal against that order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan which was accepted on 13.02.2010. The order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan is against the law and facts of the case which has been passed without appreciating contention of the petitioners. The respondents was badly time-barred but this fact of the case was not kept in view while passing the impugned order. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the District Officer (Revenue), Multan passed ex parte order without hearing contention of the respondents. That order was ex parte and thus against the law which was liable to be set aside. Moreover, an application for cancellation of the said sale certificate was pending adjudication before the Civil Judge, Multan, therefore, in presence of the same, the lower Court should not have passed the said order dated 26.05.2004.
The respondents assailed that order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan who rightly and lawfully accepted their appeal and set aside the impugned order vide his order dated 13.02.2010. The Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan passed the said order after hearing contention of the parties and no irregularity or illegality has been pointed out in the same. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsels of the parties and have also gone through record of the case including the impugned orders. Learned counsel for revision petitioners argues that District Officer (Revenue), Multan gave the permission for review of mutation Nos.
43588 and 43652 in accordance with decree passed by Civil Court. Learned counsel for respondents counter argued that at the time of passing of order by the District Officer (Revenue), Multan opportunity of being heard was not given to them which were their fundamental right. On the question of court, learned counsel for respondents admitted that decree was passed in their presence in the Civil Court, however, he asserted that even in case of implementation of decree they were required to be heard as order was likely to be passed on Judicial side. I have weighed the arguments of both sides and perused the record. Permission to review and that too in the light of order of the Civil Court where respondents were present is an order on executive side. It cannot be termed as Judicial order. It was just an implementation ordered by the District Officer (Revenue), Multan and in my view the order was quite legal and just. There was no reason for Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan to interfere in the process of implementation of decree of Civil Court ordered by District Officer (Revenue), Multan.
6. In view of what has been said, I find reason to interfere and set aside the order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan while accepting the revision petition. ROR accepted.