SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J. The petitioners have assailed the older passed by the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 15.04.2014 under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the contention that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 4 Esa son of Muhammad Ismail was the owner of the land measuring 87-1/2 Acres in Chak No.6/BC, Yazman. The proprietary rights were attained during his lifetime and the land was governed by Muhammadan Law which was enforced by the Bahawalpur State at that relevant time. After the death of predecessor in interest of the petitioners, two mutations i.e. mutation Nos. 25 and 20 were sanctioned on 14.09.1950 and 16.12.1948, respectively.
The predecessor in interest Mst. Saira Bibi and Rehmat Bibi were the daughters of Esa the original owner of the land while sanctioning the mutation No.25 dated 14.09.1950, the said daughters of Esa were shown as legal heirs of deceased and their names were entered in the said mutation, whereas, mutation No.20 was sanctioned on 16.12.1948 under the Colonization Act and the names of the daughters were ignored while making the entries in the mutation. The petitioners filed the review petition about mutation No.20 before the Assistant Commissioner Sadar which was accepted vide order dated 10.05.2011 and the petitioners were declared legal heirs of Esa deceased and their names were ordered to be entered as legal heirs in the said mutation. The petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, who uphold the order of Assistant Commissioner Sadar. In compliance with the said two orders, mutation No.344 dated 11.01.2013 was sanctioned in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 challenged the new sanctioned mutation No.344 before the Board of Revenue. The Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 15.04.2014 accepted the revision petition filed by respondents Nos.2 to 4 and previous orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner were set-aside.
Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity and sanctity of the order of the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue dated 15.04.2014 that this order has been passed without applying the conscious and judicious mind. The Member (Judicial-H) Board of Revenue had not appreciated the legal proposition that both the mutations Nos. 20 and 25 regarding inheritance of Esa Khan were to be sanctioned in accordance with Muhammadan Law and the predecessor in interest of the petitioners the two females were entitled to inherit the property. The Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that in Bahawalpur State all the inheritance were governed in Muhammadan Law and Sharia. It is also important that when the mutation of inheritance of the same deceased was sanctioned under Muhammadan Law then why the other was not sanctioned when it was exclusively the ownership of the deceased. The state was not the owner of the property at that time. The proprietary rights already had been confirmed.
Therefore, the provision of Colonization Act could not applicable to the said mutations. The matter was not within the ambit of section 19-A of the Colonization Act, 1912 and it was to be sanctioned in accordance with Muhammadan Law as that was applicable in Bahawalpur State at that tin e.
Further, the matter of limitation was not applicable to the present proposition as it was regarding the inheritance. And no time period/limitation is application to the proposition of inheritance matters.
2. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the matter in hand relates to the precious rights of the ladies who had claimed their right on the basis of the inheritance. The review petition of mutation No.20 was filed by the petitioners that in the inheritance of their predecessor in interest females were deprived from their Sharai right. The learned Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner both accepted the prayer of the petitioners and mutation No.344 was sanctioned in 2013. Whereas; it was when challenged before the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue without appreciating the legal and the factual proposition, the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue decided the proposition against the record and against the law and ordered to cancel the mutation No.344.
3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, resisted the arguments and argued that it was not an inheritance mutation. The mutation was sanctioned in accordance with the law prevailing at that time. Furthermore, after 62 years this mutation was challenged through review petition.
There were so many complicated legal and factual questions involved in the proposition and that could not be settled either in the review proceedings or in the writ jurisdiction before this court.
Furthermore, the question of inheritance or entitlement could be settled by civil court. The revenue authorities just can make the correction, if any, in the revenue record/mutations, if same has been filed within time. But it is not a matter of correction of the mutation. Intact, the mutation was sanctioned in accordance with the law prevailing at that time. There was no mistake in the mutation which could be rectified by the revenue authorities. The mater of the title cannot be resolved by the revenue authorities. Further referred that the review was also not maintainable under section 162 Of the Land Revenue Act. Counsel further argued that the present petitioners have no locus standi to file the review petition as the ladies remained alive more than 50 years after the sanction of the said mutation and they did not assail the same before any competent forum. Furthermore, there is no fraud in the said mutations as these were sanctioned strictly in accordance with law. The matter of title and right of inheritance could not be answered in summary proceedings. Therefore, the revenue authorities were not empowered to take the cognizance of the said proposition. The decision of the Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue is in accordance with law.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. This is a case of the correction of the revenue record that at the time of sanctioning of two different mutations of one deceased, the different entries of his legal heirs were incorporated in the mutations. It is notable that these two mutations were not sanctioned at one time. The mutation which has been challenged was sanctioned in the year 1948 i.e. on 06.12.1948, whereas, the other mutation No.25 was sanctioned after 02 years of that mutation i.e. on 14.09.1950. Firstly, there is a question of the review when and by whom it can be filed. The ladies remained alive as per record admittedly for about 50 years after the sanction of both the mutations but they did not challenge the same. There is no other opinion that section 19-A was inserted in the Colonization Act, 1912 in 1951 prior to this the succession mutations were sanctioned under section 19 of this Act where the only male members were given the right to succeed the inheritance of the deceased. With the induction of section 19-A the tenancy was to be devolved on the legal heirs in accordance with Muslim Personal Law/Sharia then the male and female all the members were made entitled to inherit the property of the deceased who was having the proprietary rights of the land under this act (Colonization of Government Land Panjab Act, 1912). In both the cases where a land is acquired under any scheme of this Colonization Act or the land was owned by the person and he was sole owner of the property by himself. If on his death the inheritance is devolved and some mutations are sanctioned, there is a specific procedure provided for its review if there are some entries made on the basis of some mistake or against the facts. The relevant section of W. P. Land Revenue Act, 1967 for review of the said mutations is 172(2)(xvi) which says;- "any claim to set aside, on any ground other than fraud. a sale for the recovery of an arrear of land-revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue; "
Section 163 Sub-CI. 2(b) of the W. P. Land Revenue Act, 1967 says; "Clause (b) of subsection (2) section 163 provides a period of ninety days for making application for review.
Application filed after expiry of limitation period can be dismissed on ground of limitation in absence of cogent explanation for the delay [1999 YLR 1462, 2016 MLD 1793]. Order of review having been passed without adverting to the question of limitation, is mechanical in nature passed without application of mind, such proceedings are incompetent. [2000 YLR 2888] It is incumbent on the Revenue Officer to seek permission of the next higher authority to review his own order. If a Revenue Officer mistakenly does not obtain sanction of next higher authority and proceeded to review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office, the defect shall not jeopardize the applications for review but the application shall be deemed to be pending disposal before the Assistant Collector, Collector or Commissioner, as the case might be. [1997 CLC 1964] Prior permission of Board of Revenue is not required before the revision petition is heard by the Commissioner. [2001 CLC 13]"
A period of 90-days for making application for review. The application filed after expiry of the limitation period can be dismissed on the ground of cognizance for the delay. Reliance is placed on 1999 YLR 1462 and 2016 MLD 1793. It has also been held in 2000 YLR 2888 that any order of review having been passed without adverting to the question of limitation is mechanical in nature passed without application of mind, such proceedings are incompetent. Furthermore, section 172 of W. P.
Land Revenue Act, 1967 clearly says that the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities is specifically barred to review any document when there is allegation of fraud or misrepresentation in sanctioning of some mutation. Reliance is placed on "Sardar Muhammad and others v. Imam Bakhsh (deceased) through LRs and others" (2021 SCMR 391) wherein it is held; "----S. 172(2) (xvi)--- Proceedings before Revenue Officers/Revenue Courts---Nature---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) cancelling a sale mutation carried out in jalsa-e-aam in the presence of witnesses on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation-- Legality--Proceedings before the Revenue Officer or before the Revenue Courts were summary in nature and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed question of fact were not to be adjudicated in the hierarchy--- Determination of complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact fell within the sole domain of the civil Court---Plea that a mutation entry was procured through fraud, could not have been decided in proceedings which were summary in nature as such controversy required adjudication by allowing the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims---Section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 only empowered the Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers; the raison d'etre for the same was that the proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court were summary in nature; they possessed a limited scope of enquiry and did not possess the characteristics of a civil suit that necessitated framing of the issues or recording evidence of the parties, as such matters fell within the sole domain of the civil courts---Besides, S. 172(2)(xvi) of the 1967 Act left the adjudication of plea of fraud to the competence of the civil courts---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) ['DDO(R)'] transgressed his limits in the present case by declaring the subject mutation as having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Appeal was allowed."
6. Similarly, it has been held by the august courts in various judgments that attestation of mutation on the basis of fictitious pedigree table depriving the plaintiff of his right of share plaintiff alleged that such mutation has been attested in mala fide manner through fraud and misrepresentation, hence, fraud could always be challenged before civil court. Parties could not be left without any relief. Civil court has jurisdiction in such matters. This is also notable that the point of limitation and the point of satisfaction of the entitled ladies who remained alive 50 years after the sanction of mutation and did not agitate, are very important to be thrashed and these entries cannot be thrashed without making the required inquiry which is only within the jurisdiction of civil court and the revenue authorities, cannot inquire the same as they have only the summary trial procedure with them. The matter agitated by the petitioners that the ladies have been deprived from their legal/Sharai right is very important to sort out but it has been pointed out that the parties also have filed their matters before the civil court and one of the matter is also pending before the civil court which is proper forum to entertain and decide the grievance of both the parties. The learned Member (Judicial-II) has rightly pointed out that question of limitation and the question of title and the allegations raised by the petitioners that the ladies have been deprived by the male members from their legal and Sharai inheritance right, comes within the jurisdiction of the civil court and in the revenue proceedings, such matter after a period of more than 50 years cannot be resolved.
The correction of the entries in the revenue record and correction of the mutation after such a long time, also is not the prerogative of the revenue authorities especially in the review petition, when the original persons, themselves have not agitated the same in their lifetime.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The order of Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue is in accordance with law. No ground is available in this revision petition, same is dismissed.