MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.---The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below , whereby the respondents' suit for declaration was decreed and appeal whereof filed by the present petitioners was dismissed vide impugned judgments dated 31.10.2009 and 29.06.2010, respectively , have been called-in-question through this revision petition.
2. The respondents who are non-claima nt of Jammu and Kashmir refugees got the land-in-dispute transferred, incorporated in their names in the revenue record and mutations were sanctioned on the basis of completion of all the formalities including deposit of its requisite cost. Subsequently the Deputy Commissioner/Collector vide order dated 31.07.2001 allowed to review the said mutations holding that the properties were transferred in the name of the present respondents on the direction of incompetent authority who lacked jurisdiction to pass such orders, therefore, sanctioning of mutations in favour of the present respondents was illega l, unlawful; hence, permitted the revenue officers to review . This order of the District Collector was challenged in civil Court in a suit for declaration with consequential relief. The learned trial Court after framing the issues on divergent pleadings of the parties and recording their evidence, decreed the suit declaring the act of the petitioners to be without lawful authority , appeal whereof preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court after framing an additional issue qua jurisdiction and maintainability of suit before the learned trial Court, answering it in affirmative and then approved the judgment of the learned trial Court holding lacking/missing of any legal infirmity; hence, this revision petition.
3. The contention of the learned Law Officer representing the petitioners is that although reasons for grant of approval of review of mutations by the District Collector were not specifically mentioned as it is silent in this regard, however , tenor of the order reflects that it was passed for the reason that the Assistant Commissioner , who had confirmed proprietary lights as Notified Officer by virtue of Notification, ceased to exercise the power of Notified Officer, therefore, conferment of proprietary rights upon the respondents, at the relevant time, was not within his domain; hence all the exercise of granting proprietary rights ensuing sanctioning of mutations in favour of the present respondents was not justified, therefore, granting permission for its review , action/act/order of review of those mutations was in accordance with law .
4. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the petitioner s as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused record of the case with their able assistance.
5. First adverting to the contention raised by learned Law Officer on behalf of the petitioners, it is noticed that the Notification dated 30.04.1978 issued by the Secretary (Rural), Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing, Board of Revenue, Punjab, addressed to all the Assistant Commissioners of Sialkot, Gujranwala, Gujrat, Campbellpur , Jhelum and Rawalpindi Districts demonstrates the grant of proprietary rights to all the occupants of temporary allottees of Jammu and Kashmir Refugee s provided they deposited the price/cost of the land at the prescribed rate of Rs.10 per Produce Index Unit. Accordingly the respondents under direction of the concerned Assistant Commissioner deposited the requisite amount and consequent whereof the Assistant Commissioner approved their cases for grant of proprietary rights which followed the sanctioning of mutations after confirmation of deposit of requisite cost/price, therefore, the contention of learned Additional Advocate General that at the time of =grant of proprietary rights and ordering for sanction of mutations the powers of Notified Officers were withdrawn from the Assistant Commissioners, therefore, on account of lack of jurisdiction, Assistan t Commissioner was unable to perform as Notified Officer; resultantly sanctioning of mutations in favour of the respondents being nullity in the eye of law, was rightly ordered to be reviewe d for obtaining the necessary orders from the competent Notified Officer, has no substance rather misconceived. Mandate of the letter dated 30.04.1978 apparently was to empower the Assistant Commissioners and not the Notified Officers to transfer the land to the temporary allottees after receiving its cost/price Rs.10 per P.I. Unit and mutations were also ordered to be sanctioned through this letter and by accepting/ condoning/dispensing with all other formalities, specific direction was issued to the Assistant Commissioners for conferment of proprietary rights to the occupants. It further stipulates that matter for grant of proprietary rights was decided in the meeting of the Chief Secretaries and Members Board of Revenue of all the Provinces held on 30.03.1978 under the Chairmanship of the Advisor to the G.M.L.A. on Kashmir Affairs Division, Lt.-Gen. Faiz Ali Chishti, leaving no room for any authority including Notified Officer to exercise its/his power rather allotments in favour of the occupants were approved in the meeting reflecting from the letter and the Assistant Commissioners were specifically entrusted compliance / implementation in terms mentioned therein, therefore, it is held that the mutations under direction s of Assistant Commissioner after grant of proprietary rights to the respondents and all others, were rightly sanctioned by the concerned Tehsildar following the directions issued in aforesaid letter dated 30.04.1978 in its true perspective and in this backdrop there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to grant permission for review of mutations sanctioned in favour of the respondents. It is expedient to reproduce the body/extract of the letter/order as under:- "In pursuance of the decision taken in the high level meeting of the Chief Secretaries and Members Board of Revenue of all the Provinces, held on 30.3.78 under the Chairmanship of the Advisor to the G.M.L.A. on Kashmir Affairs Division, Lt. Gen. Faiz Ali Chishti, PSC fsc (I), it has been decided to transfer/Proprietary rights to the non- claimant J&K refugees who have been allotted evacuee land on temporary basis. A list of eligible persons furnished by the Govt. of Pakistan Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Div., Islamabad, tehsilwise along with applications on the prescribed forms bearing orders of verification and transfer of proprietary rights on both the forms, in favour of the temporary al lottees concerned is being sent to you through special Messenger within a week. According to the decision of the Federal Government contained in their letter No. F.2(1)J&K dated 23.4.1974 as already conveyed transfer of proprietary rights to the J&K temporary allottees of evacuee land is to be made on payment of Rs.10/- per P .1. unit.
On receipt of the files related with the aforesaid list from the Hqr. Office, you are requested to order for the deposit of the amount by the temporary allottee concerned at the prescribed rate of Rs. 10/- P.I. Unit on the basis of verification/orders passed by the Claims Commissioner , Government of Pakistan, J&K Refugees peh. Orgn on the said applications, under head 'P-Deposits and Advances Part II not bearing interest-Departmental and Judicial Deposits-Civil Deposits-Personal Deposits of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Provincial) and issue necessary direction to the Tehsildar concerned to transfer proprietary rights through mutation after the amount is deposited.
The Tehsildar concerned shall maintain a register in the form as Annexure 'A'.
It may be noted that as per decision in the meeting referred to above proprietary rights are to be transferred in the name of the head of the family .
It may, however , be kept in view that the transaction is carried out in such a manner as to avoid any inconvenience hardship to the individual concerned.
This work may kindly be treated as Most Urgent and assigned 'Top Priority' and the process finalized within 3 months positively . A fortnightly progress report should also sent to this office by the 5th and 20th of each month, for the information of Chief Secretary and Member Board of Revenue (S&R), Punjab."
6. Besides above, I also agree with the reasoning of both the learned Courts below , which decreed the respondents' suit concurrently declaring the order dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector a non-speaking and terse order passed without issuing any notic e and hearing of the present respondents/plaintif fs. There is also no evidence on record to establish that the land-in-dispute was got allotted while committing fraud and forgery . It was also rightly held that after obtaining proprietary rights and sanctioning of mutations in favour of the respondents, it became a matter of past and closed transaction.
7. In view of the above, finding no legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of two Courts below , it is held that the judgments, impugned herein, are in consonance with the law and facts of the case; hence no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional power provided under Section 115, C. P.C., thus, this revision petition having no merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.