' NAYYER MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII).--Through this single order aforementioned both revision petitions which have been filed under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 are being disposed of since parties, impugned orders, arguments, purpose and law points involved in these petitions are identical. Through these petitions, single order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal dated 16.05.2012 has been challenged by the petitioners, Malik Ali etc.
2. Brief facts of these cases are that mutation No.10, dated 22.02.1961 pertaining to transfer of Ihata No.14 (2k-lm-7s), situated in Chak No.90/D, Tehsil and District Pakpattan and mutation No.35 pertaining, to transfer of land measuring 144K-OM, dated 20.09.1961, situated in the same Chak sanctioned in favour of Ahmad Din etc. Were challenged by Ahmad Yar etc. Legal heirs of Mst.
Jannat Bibi (deceased) widow of Dara before the then Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan on 04.04.2009 and 13.03.2009. Both appeals were consolidated and through the single order dated 07.05.2010, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan accepted the same, both mutations were cancelled/ set aside and restored land in favour of the appellants. Two separate appeals were lodged by legal heirs of Ahmad Din (present petitioners) in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal. Vide impugned order dated 16.05.2012, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal dismissed both appeals and order of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan was upheld. Hence, these revision petitions.
3. In his written arguments, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Kanjoo Advocate/counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan without considering the merits and demerits of the case cancelled both mutations. 50 years time-barred appeals were illegally, accepted by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan which were sanctioned in execution of orders of the then District Collector dated 11.11.1960. Hence both orders of the lower courts are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside on the following grounds:--
(a) That predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had acquired tenancy rights from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Both of them appeared before the competent authority and got necessary permission under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act,' 1912 for transfer of proprietary rights in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners.
(b) That after receiving the tenancy amount in lieu of consideration amount, predecessor-in- interest of respondents transferred the tenancy rights in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. For long 50 years none of the parties objected to said transfer.
(c) That while setting aside, more, than half a century old mutations, the Deputy, District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan did not give weightage of longstanding entries in the revenue. The version of the respondents that petitioners are their tenants is baseless.
(d) That Deputy District Officer (Revenue) had absolutely no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the District Collector, which was passed on 11.11.1960 and only a review Petition could have been filed if the respondents party deems it fit. The reasons advanced by both courts below for cancellation of both mutations are erroneous and without foundation.
(e) That while passing the impugned orders, both courts below have not applied their judicious mind and decided the matter in arbitrary manner, which have caused a grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioners whereby valuable rights of the petitioners have been snatched.
(f) That the petitioners have been condemned unheard while passing the impugned order.
(g) Provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 mentioned in Sections 42 and 44 are not attracted to the case of the petitioners because it was merely the implementation of order of the District Collector dated 11.11.1960.
' He prayed that the revision petitions may be accepted, impugned orders of courts below may be set aside and both mutations may be restored in the best interest of justice and fair play.
4. Mian Muhammad Siddique Kamiana, Advocate/counsel for the respondents argued that under section 5 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, allottee is cultivator while the impugned land is owned by the Provincial Government without permission under section 19 of the Act ibid cultivation of an allottee cannot be confirmed. Such permission was not obtained. If any permission has been obtained, then the mutations are wrong because it hits by Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and previous Section 37 (1887). Section 19 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 says that permission of the Commissioner is mandatory and if District Collector transferred the property without permission of the Commissioner, his order would be 'void ab initio. He further argued that while passing mutation, the Revenue Officer referred to an Order No.2505 dated 11.11.1960 but there was no mention of any Rapat Roznamcha and violated Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 according to which buyer has to inform Patwari concerned. In turn, Patwari has to enter the same in Roznamcha Waqiati and has to send a copy of the same to the buyer and the Union Council concerned. After that its entry is to made in mutation register and then Revenue Officer has to sanction the same in open assembly in the presence of buyer. There is no mention of Rapat Roznamcha in the mutations nor these have been sanctioned in the presence of buyer. Concurrent findings of the courts below are in favour of the respondents, which cannot be legally interfered with. In support of his assertions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on PLD 1959 W.P. (Rev.) 87, PLD 1967 W.P. (Rev.) 103, 1995 MLD 45, PLD 1967 W.P. (Rev.)m 32, 2007 SCMR 262, PLD 1974 Lahore 434, 2000 SCMR 431 and PLD 1987 Lahore 659. He prayed that the revision petition is not maintainable being devoid of force, which may be dismissed and concurrent findings of the courts below may be upheld.
5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties considered and documents placed on record minutely perused. Both mutations were challenged by Ahmad Yar etc. Legal heirs of Mst.
Jannat Bibi (deceased) widow of Dara After hearing the respective parties and examining the relevant record, the then Deputy District Officer (Revenue); Pakpattan held that the land, in question, was transferred by the Revenue Officer concerned on 11.11.1960 without obtaining permission from the District Collector or the Commissioner, as per law. He accordingly accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned mutations with the direction to the Revenue Officer concerned to restore the land in dispute in favour of the appellants Mst. Jannat Bibi etc. (represented by her legal heirs Ahmad Yar etc., respondents). The appeals of present petitioners against the order of the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan dated 07.05.2010 were also rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division Sahiwal after thoroughly examining the whole case. In such cases, permission under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 is mandatory but in the case in hand, neither the permission was obtained from the District Collector nor the then Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan by the Revenue Officer concerned before transferring the land in question in favour of the present petitioners. The concurrent findings of the courts below are in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore, I do not find any reason to differ with the impugned orders of the two courts below, which are upheld and these revision petitions are hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
7.(sic) After hearing arguments from both sides, judgment in these petitions was reserved on 29.09.2015 and it is being announced today, which may be communicated to the respective parties through their counsel.