CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL , through this writ petition, the petitioners challenged the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Collector Lahore whereby applicat ion under Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for correction of mutation No. 22 dated 27.03.1959 regarding inheritance of Laal Khan son Raheem Khan in respect of land measuring 45 Kanals 5 Marlas situated in Mouza Ameer Pura Tehsil Lahore City District Lahore was accepted and the said mutation was declared illegal and also challenged the order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore whereby he dismissed the petition for restoration of the appeal as well as order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Member (Judicial VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab dismissing ROR No. 1270 of 2015 filed by the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Taj Begum being refugee obtained allotment of land measuring 126 Kanals 10 Marlas in Mauza Ameer Pura Lahore. She sold her land to Barkat Ali and Sardar Khan through registered sale- deed No. 1625 dated 12.05.1959 and No. 5625 dated 21.01.1960 and also handed over possession to the present petitioners. In 1993 Jafar Khan and Dewan Khan predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents challenged the above sale-deed by way of filing a suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application but the revision petition filed by the petitioners was accepted and the plaint of the suit was rejected by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 31.03.1996. Against the said judgment and decree/order a W.P. No. 4127 of 1997 titled Jafar Khan, etc. vs. Barkat Ali, etc. was filed by the respondent which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.06.1997 and then Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1455/L of 1997 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 15.04.1999.
The private respondents then filed an application under Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act for correction of mutation No. 22, dated 27.03.1959 in respect of inheritance of Laal Khan son of Raheem Khan. The said application was accepted by the Settlement Officer/Collector on 14.02.2005. Against the said order . the petitioners filed appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue). During pendency of the appeal the respondents filed yet another application under Section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 for cancellation of mutation No. 25 in respect of remaining land which was allowed on 14.02.2005. The petitioners also filed appeal against the said order and both the appeals were heard together . Meanwhile the respondents also filed a suit on the same subject-matter but the plaint in the suit was rejected on 23.12.2009. An appeal and a Constitutional petition were filed by the respondents against the said decision which were also dismissed by the learned Addl.
District Judge and by this Court vide orders dated 12:06.2010 and 21.10.2010 respectively . The respondents also filed Civil Appeal No. 740-L of 2013 against the said order which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.05.2016 by the Hon'ble apex Court.
The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division, Lahore vide order dated 11.02.2015 separated both the files of the appeals and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners treating it as review application with the observation that the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be reviewed without prior permission of the Board. The said order was assailed by the petitioners through filing revision petition bearing ROR No 1270 of 2015 before the Member (Judicial VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab which also was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2016, hence the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders of the revenue hierarchy impugned through this writ petition were passed in violation of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as the controversy between the parties has been finally decided upto the apex Court and the same has become a past and closed transaction. As such the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are liable to be declared illegal and unlawful; that the petitioners are in possession of the land purchase by them in 1959-1960 from the allottee whose rights are still intact as the same were not challenged under Section 3 of the Punjab Muslim Law Shariat (Removal of Difficulties) Act XXV of 1975 within the stipulated period of one year. The learned counsel, therefore, request that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submit that no illegality has been committed by revenue hierarchy while passing the impu gned orders, thus the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. They also submit that the petitione rs are illegal encroachers. The learned counsel further submits that the revenue hierarchy rightly observed that Lal Khan was the original allottee who died issueless leaving behind two widows Roshan Bibi, Taj Bibi alias Tajo, two brothers and one sister , therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as Mst. Taj Bibi was only entitled to 1/4 share in the estate of the deceased.
Heard. Record perused.
6. Mmittedly Taj Bibi alias Tajo was widow of Laal Khan, who got allotted land measuring 126 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in Mauza Ameer Pura and sold the same to the petitioners through sale-deed No. 1625 dated 12.05.1959 and No. 5625 dated 21.01.1960. Jafar Khan predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents filed a suit in .the year 1993-for separate possession through partition and cancellation of the documents. In the said suit the petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC which Was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, but the learned Addl. District Judge while accepting the revision petition filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners rejected the plaint vide order , dated 31.03.1996. Relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-- "Mst. Taj Begum admittedly had been allotted agriculture land in 1952-1953 which fact was also mentioned in the particulars of evacuee property held by Mst Taj Begun:, in the order dated 13.5.1959 in which the respondents were also a party , therefore, the respondents were at least in the knowledge of the fact that Mst. Taj Begum had been allotted the suit land solely and exclusively on 30.05.1959. It would further be observed that the allotment in favour of Mst. Taj Begum through order dated 13.5.1959 has not been challenged in the plaint. Mst. Taj Begum was held an absolute owner in the revenue record at the time of purchase by the petitioners through registered sale- deeds. The mutations were also sanction ed and attested in favour of the petitioners and entries were also made in the jamabandies of several years which were a sufficient notice to the respondents. The suit was admittedly brought on 26.05.1993. The respondents as such seemed to have purposely concealed the order dated 13.5.1959 in the plaint which fact was sufficient to presume that the respondents and knowled ge of their right in respect of the suit property since 1959. In view of the above facts the suit of the respondents was clearly barred by time and under the law where a plaint is barred by limitation it is to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. Prima facie the suit of the petitioners seems to be based on the plea of limitation and ownership of Mst. Taj Begum. Section 3 of Act XXV Punjab Muslim Law Shariat (Removal of Difficulties Act 1975) bars the institution of suit in the year 1993 as such a suit could be instituted in a Court within one year of commencement of the Act, 1975. In view of the said Act also, the plaint was liable ,to be rejected being time-barred. Since Mst. Taj Begum was recorded as an exclusive owner -in-possession in respect of the suit land, therefore, the transactions in dispute were the transactions past and closed and the same were not open to any controversy after the lapse of more than 30 years.
8. In view of the whole discussion above I accept the revision petition, setting-aside the impugned order , grant the application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and resultantly the plaint of the suit titled Jaffar Khan etc. Versus MsL Taj Begum, etc . is rejected under Order VII, Rule 1 1, CPC. The parties are however , left to bear their own casts."
The private respondents filed writ petition No. 4127 of 1996 challenging the order dated 31.03.1996, which 'was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.06.1997. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as under: 'After hearing both the learned counsel at length and having gone through the order impugned, 1 am of the view that the order impugned is not open to any exception. It is now too late in the day to urge the plea offraud, because no substantial proof has been disclosed in the Plaint. By merely asserting that the transaction was fraudulent, it does not become so. Mutation was entered into which was confirmed subsequently and the entries in JamaBandi were incorporated accordingly . Sale-deeds were executed and registered long ago in 1959 and 1960. The allotment of suit land in favour Taj Beg-um and the alienation made by her 30 years ago were the transaction past and-closed, and the same could not be re-opened by a frivolous suit by petitioners/plaintiffs on 26.05.1993, therefore, they cannot be allowed in such-like manner to harass the defendants/respondents.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the judgment impugned does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity .
Furthermore, while exercising writ jurisdiction, this Court has to examine whether the order has been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction. While hearing the writ petition, this Court cannot sit as an appellate Court against the judgment delivered by an Addl. District Judge in exercise of his revisional jurisd iction. Therefore, I hold that the order impugned dated 31.3.1996 passed by Addl. District Judge, Lahore does not call for any interference by this Court, inasmuch as the same has been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any merits in this petition which is dismissed accordingly ...
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1455/L of 1997 filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 15.04.1999. The respondents again filed second suit in the year 2008 for cancellation of sale-deed No, 5625 dated 21.01.1960 on the ground that Tajo Bibi being widow of Lal Khan, on the basis of fraud succeeded in getting mutation No. 22 in her favour and on the basis of said mutation got allotted land measuring 126 Kanals 10 Marlas in Mouza Ameer Pura Tehsil City Lahore District Lahore. The said civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.12.2009. The said order is reproduced as under:-- "Perusal of record reveals that the matter has been decided uptill -august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the questions involving in the present suit were taken into consideration and decided. Therefore, permission for filing the fresh suit is not granted. However , the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room after its necessary completion.
Against the said order , the private respondents filed revision petition which was dismissed on 12.06.2010 by the learned Addl. District. Judge, Lahore. The respondents assailed the said order through filing W.P. No. 16395 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2010. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced:--- "6. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of the judgment of Hon 'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan viz Civil Petition No. 1455-L of 1997 which was contested between the predecessor -in-interest of the parties and finally vide judgment dated 15.4.1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan refused to grant the leave.
7. In the light of judgment mentioned hereinabove this writ petition is misconceived. Both the learned Courts below have rightly passed the judgments. No interference is called for . Writ petition is dismissed. "
Against the said order the respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 740-L of 2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 19.05.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and matter attained finality .
7. After having lost the cause upto the august Supreme Court the respondent filed application under Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for correction of mutation No. 22, dated 27.03.1959. It is settled law that the alteration and modification of longstanding entries incorporated in the revenue record went out of the domain of revenue authorities as numero us transactions of awarding and rescind ing the title of different persons would have taken place during the elapsed period. Any modifications, changes or insertion of fresh stipulation originating any sort of right or title in favour of a party in the longstanding entries in the revenue record can only be made through decree of learned Civil Court and the revenue officer should ordinarily avoid to exercise the jurisdiction of Civil Court, in such-like matter . Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Yousaf & 3 others vs. Khan Bahadur through LRs. (1992 SCMR 2334 ), .Waris Khan & 18 others Vs. Col. Huma yun Shah & 41 others (PLD 1994 SC 336), Rasta Mal Khan & others Vs. Nabi Sorwar Khan & others (1996 SCMR 78), Nemat Ali & another Vs. Malik Habib Ullah & others (2004 SCMR 604). Further the matter regarding correction of mutation dated 27.03.1959 has earlier been settled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, thus the same has attained finality , as such the revenue hierarchy has no jurisdiction to frustrate the judgment passed by the Court of civil jurisdiction, which has already been upheld upto the Hon'ble apex Court and undeniably the decisions of the Court of civil jurisdiction are binding upon the revenue authority which are bound to implement the same in letter and spirit. It is settled law that the decision of Supreme Court even if based on legal technicalities or niceties is binding on all Courts in Pakistan. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Muhammad Ashraf and others vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and 3 others (1999 SCMR 336), a portion whereof is reproduced below:-- "Here, the Tribunal declined to grant relief to the petitioners on the erroneous assumption that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others (supra) was based on legal technicalities and niceties. Needless to say that the decision rendered by this Court even if "based on legal technicalities and niceties" as discourteously described by the learned members of the Tribunal, is binding on all Courts in Pakistan as contemplated by Article 189 of the Constitution."
Reliance in this regard may also be placed on Abdul Majid and others Vs. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others (PLD 1982 SC 146), Abdul Majid and another Vs. Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah (1995 SCMR 429) and Mirza Shuukat Baig and others Vs. Shahid Jamil and others (PLD 2005 SC 530 ).
8. As the matter has already been conclu ded in previous " round of litigation upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and attained finality but the respondent with grotesque intention and with concealment of material facts filed application for review/correction of Mutation No. 22 dated 27.03.1959 and succeeded in obtaining the impugned order from the revenue hierarc hy, which lack any jurisdiction to probe into validity of a past and closed transaction and the declaration of the Civil Court as well as that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.- When all earlier decisions were available before the revenue hierarchy , it was not expected to pass such contumacious order which have no support of any law. The Hon'ble apex Court in a case reported as Syed Hassan Mehdi and others Vs. Province of Punjab and others (PLD 201 1 SC 916 ) has held that:--- "11. In the present case too, the main controversy was competently brought before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. After its decision thereon it was open to the parties to challenge the same in accordance with law governing the question of finality of the High Court decisions, namely , through review or appeal. In the circumstances, the filing of suit instead was an attempt to bypass the normal legal course by resort to a remedy which was not available to the petitioners under any law or principle.
As the matter has already been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to reopen the matter at its own whims and caprice as such the impugned order is patently illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law .
9. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the Collector Lahore, order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore and order dated 03.03.2016 pass ed by the Member (Judicial VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab are set aside.
Resultantly respondent's application for correction of mutation No. 22 dated 27.03.1959 shall be considered to have been rejected.