' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--Succinctly the facts of the case are that Gulzar Ahmad (hereinafter to be referred as respondent No,1) was owner of landed property, which was got transferred by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and petitioners in their favour by means of attestation of mutations Nos.322 dated 8.5.1997, 323 dated 10.5.1997, 325 dated 5.12.1997, 328 dated 21.4.1998, 329 dated 21.4.1998, 330 dated 21.4.1998 and 342 dated 30.6.1998. Mst. Sughran Bibi, the real sister of respondent No,1, preferred an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad with the averments that as her brother, respondent. No,1 was an unsound and retorted person since his birth, who was unable to protect his interests and property affairs; that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and present petitioners got attested disputed mutations regarding property of respondent No,1 by practicing fraud and misrepresentation through connivance with the revenue field staff and prayed for their cancellation. The District Collector assigned the inquiry to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pindi Bhattian for probing into the complaint launched by Mst. Sughran Bibi. Thereafter, the District Collector vide order dated 7.2.2007 consigned the said application while directing the complainant to approach the court of ultimate jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance. Being despondent, an appeal was preferred by her before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad, who vide order dated 5.10.2009 accepted the appeal and while reviewing the above referred mutations, cancelled the same with a direction to the Revenue Officer to correct the revenue record accordingly. The said order was assailed by the present 'petitioners by filing ROR No,1607/2009 before the Member (Judicial-1), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2009. By filing the instant constitutional petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 5.10.2009 and 21.10.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad and Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Today C.M. No,553-2016 has been filed on behalf of the respondent No, 1 to place on record certain relevant documents, which has not been resisted by the petitioners, hence, is allowed. Now, I proceed to deal with the main writ petition on merits.
3 Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders are result of misreading and non-reading of record available on the file, which have been passed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 without application of judicious mind; that a chain of transactions through attestation of different mutations regarding the property owned by respondent No,1 took place, spreading over a considerable time and not only the title but the possession also changed hands but at a belated stage the application for recalling of the mutations was filed by Mst. Sughran Bibi, which was neither maintainable nor the impugned orders could be passed by the revenue hierarchy on the said application; that the proper course for the relatives of respondent No, 1 was to seek their remedy before the Protection Court to get themselves declared to be the Manager of respondent No,1, but neither any such order was obtained from the said court nor the crucial aspect of the case as required under Section 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 was considered by respondents Nos.5 and 6 before passing the impugned orders; that under Section 29 of the Ordinance ibid, it is also necessary that a Manager is to be appointed by the Protection Court, who could proceed regarding the property and person of any unsound mind; that the question of title was involved, which could not be resolved in summary manner and proper course was to approach the Civil Court, but while ignoring the said aspect, respondents Nos.5 and 6 passed the impugned orders in an illegal manner. He has lastly prayed for the acceptance of the instant constitutional petition and setting aside of the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.5 and 6.
4. Conversely, Mr. Mohammad Hanif Dahar, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that respondent No,1 was owner of the disputed property, out of which Shahbaz Khan, respondent No,2, got transferred property measuring 31 kanals 3 marlas against a consideration of Rs,1,61,000/- through mutation No,322 dated 10.5.1997, the copy whereof is available at page 40 of the instant file. Study of the same reveals that respondent No,1 was identified by Moazam Ali Lumberdar and same was seconded by Zulfiqar before the revenue officer. On the same day other chunk of land measuring 71 kanals 4 marlas against a consideration of Rs,1,98,000/- was alienated in favour of Yara, respondent No,3 vide mutation No,323, the copy of which is also available at page 42. At the time of attestation of this mutation, respondent No,1 was identified by Moazam Ali Lumberdar and Shahbaz Khan respondent No,2 in whose favour mutation No,322 was attested. The property which was mutated in favour of Yara, respondent No,3 was further transferred to Shehbaz Khan respondent No,2 within a period of two months vide mutation No,325 on 5.12.1997 and this mutation was again attested by the same persons, who earlier attested mutation No,322. At the time of attestation of above referred mutations Moazam All Lumberdar identified respondent No,1 before the revenue officer. It is significant to note that I.D card number of respondent No, 1 is also not entered over the said mutations, whereas I.D card number of the vendees and attesting witnesses are mentioned therein which is also a proof that due to his insanity the respondent No, 1 could not get issued his ID card. The said property was further transferred by means of other impugned mutations in favour of the petitioners and on a complaint filed by Mst. Sughran Bibi, the real sister of respondent No,1, the District Collector got a fact finding report from the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pindi Bhattian. Moazam Ali, Lumberdar, the attesting witness of all the disputed mutations appeared before the Inquiry Officer and got recorded his statement that respondent No,1 was an insane person since his birth and he was not capable to transfer his property. The Imam Masjid and other notable persons of the concerned revenue estate also endorsed the statement of Lamberdar. Neither in the said drill work any witness or record was produced by the beneficiaries nor became available before the inquiry officer to prove otherwise. Through his enquiry report the Deputy District Revenue Officer recommended for the review of the disputed mutation. Mst. Sughran Bibi sister of respondent No,1 also made an application before the learned District Judge, Hafizabad for declafing respondent No,1 to be a man of unsound. The learned Additional District Judge while proceeding with the said petition referred respondent No,1 to the Medical Superintendent, Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Pindi Bhattian and thereafter to the District Headquarter Hospital, Hafizabad for ascertaining the mental health of respondent No,l. Thereupon, the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarter Hospital, Hafizabad through his report endorsed the version of Sughra Bibi and the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad vide order dated 04.01.2005 declared respondent No,1 to be mentally retorted person. On the strength of fact finding report and judicial verdict the respondent No,6 was quite justified in recalling the impugned mutations. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgments reported as "Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 153),. "United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-un-Nisa and others" (2015 SCM R 380), "Dildar Ahmad old others v. Member (Judicial-III) BOR, Punjab, Lahore"
(2013 SCM R 906) and "Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst.. Beevi and others" (2007 SCM R 614) that the revenue hierarchy after a considerable delay was not within its jurisdiction to review the mutations, is misconceived. In fact, a duty is cast upon revenue hierarchy to ensure that his record is free from the elements of fraud and whenever such element of fraud is unfolded to him or brought to his notice in any manner whatsoever and at any time, he should rectify the same. The question of limitation is wholly irrelevant in such like matters. When it is proved at two different forums that respondent No,1 was not a mentally fit person and his property was got transferred by practicing fraud and this is the element which vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument/mutation/judgment or decree obtained through fraud is nullity in the eye of law and has to fall down whenever it is challenged. Safe reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as "Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others v. Government of N. W.F.P. Through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others" (1993 SCM R 618) and Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi through L.Rs and others v. Mst. Roshan Jan and others" (2011 SCM R 986).
7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that a detailed inquiry was needed and the District Officer (Revenue) was justified to refer the complainant to approach the Civil Court is not tenable. When both the revenue as well as judicial forums had already declared respondent No,1 a mentally retorted person, then the mutations regarding the property of such person could not be sustained. In the instant case, the concurrent impugned orders have not occasioned injustice rather it cured a manifest illegality through which a mentally disabled person was deprived of his valuable property and revenue hierarchy/respondents Nos.5 and 6 were perfect in exercise of their jurisdiction, which calls for no interference. The property and the personality of a mentally retarded person is involved in the matter in hand. The revenue officer concerned where the disputed property of respondent No,1 falls is appointed as 'Receiver' of the said land, who will take charge/possession of the same and will secure and invest the income of the property upon the treatment and upbringing of respondent No,1 until and unless his manager is duly appointed by Protection Court under the provisions of Mental Health Ordinance, 2001. The instant constitutional petition is without any force and substance, which is hereby dismissed.