AYESHA A. MAIK, J.--- The Petitioner has impugned orders dated 9.4.2009 passed by the Respondent No 2 and order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and prays that the order of 26.6.2007 passed by the Respondent No. 3 be restored.
2. The facts of this case are that, the Petitioner submitted an application before the Respondent No. 3 for implementation of mutation No. 556 dated 13.3.1985 and cancellation of mutati on Nos. 1227 dated 14.2.2001, 1228 dated 14.2.2001 and 1231 dated 3.4.2001. Reports were sought for and after hearing the parties the Respondent No. 3 cancelled the mutation Nos. 1227, 1228 and 1231 and ordered for the -implementation of imitation No. 556 vide order dated 26.6.2007. The Respondent No. 4 was aggrieved by this order and he filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 3 which was accepted vide order dated 9.4.2009. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2009, the Petitioner filed ROR 1 124/2009 and the same was dismissed on '14.5.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner merely seeks correction of the record with reference to mutation No. 556 which the Respondents were obligated to record. Learned counsel further argued that since the mistake was on the part of the revenue officers, hence they should rectify the mistake by reviewing the orders of 26.6.2007 which required that mutation No. 556 be duly recorded in the revenue record.
Learned councel places reliance on the cases titled 'Muhammad Akhtar Vs. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan' (1991 MLD 456) and "Dilmir and others Vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others' (PLD 1991 Lahore 314).
4. Report and parawise comments have been- filed by the Respondents. Learned Law Officer argued that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed as there is a dispute with respect to the mutation No 556 with the Respondent No. 4. She argued that since the Respondent No. 4 disputes the mutation of exchange No. 556, hence the parties were directed to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction where the dispute with regard to the exchange of mutation could be resolved. She argued that the order dated 9.4.2009 issued by the Respondent No. 2 directed the parties accordingly . Learned Law Officer argued that since the mutation is disputed the entries in the revenue record could not be corrected as per the request of the Petitioner .
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
6. I have reviewed the impugned order of 14.5.2010. As per the order there is a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 over mutation of exchange No. 556. The Petitioner claims that the mutation of exchange had not been implemented by the District Officer (Revenue) in 1985 whereas the Respondent No. 4 claims to be the owner of the property for which mutation No. 556 is sought. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not deny the dispute, however , he stresses upon the fact that if there is any dispute that was consequent to the negligence of the Respondents to record the correct entries at the time when the exchange was made in 1985. The impugned order holds that a civil suit has been filed by the Petitioner which is still pending. The order further holds that the mutation in dispute was sanctioned in the year 1985 and the long, standing entries can only be corrected by the Civil Court. The impugned order is a well-reasoned order in accordance with law and no illegality has been made out.
7. Under the circumstances, this petition is dismissed.