1. AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the instant writ petition as well as W.P. No, 1405 of 2012, as subject-matter of both the writ petitions is a single consolidated judgment passed in RORs No: 226 & 227 of 2012, whereby both the revision petitions were dismissed.
2. 2.Through these writ petitions, consolidated judgment dated 22.5.2012 passed by Member Judicial VIII, Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby RORs No, 226 & 227 of 2012 filed by the petitioner have been dismissed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Rawalpindi Division, Camp at Jhelum dated 28.12.2011, whereby appeals filed under Section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 by Ch. Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar Hayat, respondents were allowed and order passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum dated 30.6.2008, whereby mutation No, 6095 dated 30.11.2000 was reviewed as well as review of mutations No, 7685 and 7686 attested on 18.6.2008 were also made were set aside, have been challenged.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner got attested mutation of gift in favour of Zahir Khan, respondent No, 1 on 30.11.2000 with regard to the suit property, On 1.2.2008, he moved an application before the District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum for review of mutation under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The District Officer (Revenue) accepted the review application and after review vide order dated 30.6.2008 mutation No, 6095 attested on 30.11.2000 was cancelled. Zahir Khan, respondent No, 1 aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum which was dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2009 on the ground that appellant has transferred 10 Marlas land out of suit land through mutation No, 7686 attested on 18.6.2008 in favour of Asghar Hayat, therefore, the appeal is not competent. Thereafter the transferees of the suit land, namely, Ch. Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar Hayat filed their separate appeals on the basis of their right in the suit property stating that'they have purchased the suit property through mutations Nos, 7685 and 7686 attested on 18.6.2008. Their appeals were heard and through consolidated judgment dated .28.12.2011 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi camp at Jhelum both the appeals were allowed against which two RORs, referred above, were filed and dismissed, hence this writ petition.
3. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when the appeal filed by the alleged donee was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), transferees from the alleged donee were having no right to file their appeals and order of acceptance of their appeals by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) is not sustainable under the law and also order of dismissal of revision by the Member Judicial-VIII, Board of Revenue, Punjab are not sustainable under the law. Argues further that Zahir Khan, respondent No, 1 filed declaratory suit in which written statement was filed by the petitioner and subsequently the suit was withdrawn. Learned counsel argues that the order passed against Zahir Khan was binding upon transferees, namely, Ch. Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar Hayat. Lastly. he prays for acceptance of both these connected writ petitions and setting aside the orders challenged through the same.
4. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab argue that the impugned mutation contains the signatures of the donor. i,e, petitioner and same have not been denied till today and further that in the written statement which was filed in response to the suit for declaration filed by Zahir Khan, the case pleaded by the present petitioner was that he transferred the land through gift in favour of Zahir Khan on the ground that Zahir Khan will arrange a Visa for him for England. Subsequently, Zahir Khan has not honoured his commitment, therefore, he has the right that his property be returned. States further that it was not a case of review and further that the report of the revenue authorities that the transferee i,e, Ch. Maqsood Ahmad is in possession shows that the stance of the petitioner that gift was not complete is absolutely wrong. Pray for dismissal of these writ petitions.
5. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab and gone through the record.
6. 7.When the petitioner got sanctioned mutation of gift on 30.11.2000 and after 08 years of filing of this application for review of the mutation on the ground pleaded in the application that fraudulently Zahir Khan has got the suit property transferred through gift mutation No, 6095 attested on 30.11.2000, is not sustainable under the law on the ground that ingredients of the gift, offer, acceptance and change of possession were not complete. I am of the view that once a gift mutation has been attested on the move of the donor that ingredients of the gift are complete, thereafter, application for review of mutation on the ground that its ingredients were not complete, does not lie. It is not in the ambit of the Revenue Officer to review the mutation and that too after 08 years of the passing of the mutation. When limitation of 90 days has been provided under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, the applicant has to satisfy the Revenue Officer with sufficient cause for not making the application within that period. The stance of the applicant/petitioner before the revenue authorities and before the Civil Court is that Zahir Khan got the mutation of gift attested by practicing fraud that he will bring him to England but neither he arranged the defendant's visa for England nor he has paid the amount of land transferred to him through gift mutation. Certified copy of the written statement has been placed on the file by the present petitioner himself through C.M.No, 177-2015. In the above circumstances, the stance of the petitioner is self-contradictory. As I have noted supra even if the ingredients of the gift were incomplete, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain an application after 08 years of attestation of mutation for review of the same. So far as effect of order of dismissal of appeal filed by Zahir Khan dated 25.2.2009 by the Executive District Officer (Revenue). Jhelum upon Asghar Hayat and Ch. Maqsood Ahmad is concerned, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for petitioner as the appeal was dismissed on the ground that Zahir Khan has transferred the suit property in favour of Ch. Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar Hayat. therefore, he has no interest in the property and his appeal was dismissed. The independent appeals filed by Ch. Maqsood Ahmad and Asghar Hayat were competent and rightly accepted by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and revisions thereagainst filed by the petitioner were rightly dismissed by Member Judicial-VIII, Board of Revenue, Punjab.
7. 8.In the above circumstances, no case for interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973 is made out, therefore, this writ petition being merit less is dismissed.