' ALLAH BAKHSH, J.-,Mst. Tahira Begum has by this constitutional petition called in question the order passed by respondent No, 2 on 30-10-1975 and has sought a declaration that the same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts forming the background of the impugned order briefly are that on the eve of their marriage respondent No, 6 gave 200 Jaribs of `Shah Nehri land situate in Mahal Harichand in dower to the petitioner and the marriage was duly registered under the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance on 29-11-1970. Mutation No, 617 was entered on 16.12-1971 and attested on 4-1-1972 with regard to dower and in his declaration submitted under M. t,. R. No, 115 the respondent No, 6 declared the said land as the property of the petitioner. The respondent No, 5 held the transaction void and appeal of respondent No, 6 was dismissed by respondent No,
4. His revision was, however, accepted by respondent No, 3 but respondent No, 2 invoking his suo motu powers of revision set aside the aforesaid order and declared the dower mutation as void.
3. A look at the Nikah Nama, Annexure 'A', shows that the Nikah of the petitioner was read with respondent No, 6 on 29-11-1970 and 200 Jaribs of Shah Nehri land situate in Mahal Harichand, Tehsil Charsadda was given by the latter in dower. The land was evaluated at Rs, 2,00,000. The marriage was registered the same day as required by section 5 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. Thus, 200 Jaribs of land became the property of the petitioner on the foot of the Nikah Nama duly registered under the law. Item No, 17 of the Nikah Nama shows that respondent No, 6 undertook to get a tamleek mutation attested in favour of the bride. In compliance with the aforesaid stipulation he got mutation No, 617 entered on 16-12-1971 and it was attested on 4-1-1972. The Deputy Land Commissioner declared the mutation void as it had been attested on 4-1-1972 in violation of para. 7 of M. L. R. No, 115 wherein certain transfers made on or after the 20th day of December, 1971 were void. His view was affirmed by the Land Commissioner who inter alia observed that the alienation could not be accepted "on the basis of just a casual and general entry in the Nikah Nama". It escaped their notice that the marriage had been duly registered under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance on 29-11-1970 and the disputed land stood validly transferred in favour of the petitioner. The transferer, namely, respondent No, 6 had ceased to be an owner of the land transferred by him in favour of the petitioner Mutation No, 617 was entered on 16-12-1971 and preceded the crucial date namely, 20-12-1971. The mere fact that the mutation was attested after the crucial date would not in any manner affect its validity.
4. The question of the evidentiary value of a mutation came up for consideration in Jangi v. Jhanda and others, and the following observation was made :- "Sale of land shall , be deemed to have been completed on the day on which it was effected and not on the 'date on which mutation in the revenue records was sanctioned about it. Title in the property passes when the transaction of sale is completed and is not postponed till the attestation of the mutation in the revenue records."
It is evident that the title in the property passed when the transaction of dower was completed and was on postponed till the attestation of the mutation in the revenue record. Now it is well-settled that a mutation by c itself does not confer any title and it simply means alteration of an entry in the revenue record with the objection of bringing the record up-to-date. The mere fact that mutation No, 617 was attested after the crucial date would not render it void inasmuch as the transaction of dower was complete on the date the marriage was registered and - title in the property had validly passed in favour of the petitioner as it could not be postponed till the attestion of the mutation. The views of the Deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner were obviously erroneous in the eye of law.
5. The respondent No, 2 in his order passed in suo motu revision held that the declarant was the owner of the land in question on the crucial date and remarked as under :- "The condition No, 17 may be binding on the husband but the fact remains that the husband did not take any action to get the mutation entered nor any other steps were taken to translate this condition into practice. As the law stands, he cannot make any alienation after the 20th of December, 1971."
' The observation does not appear to be proper and it escaped his notice that respondent No, 6 had undertaken per item No, 17 of the Nikah Nama to get the temleek mutation attested in favour of the petitioner. He did get the mutation entered before the crucial date and the same was attested after the said date. As the transaction was complete on 29-11-1970 the mere fact that the mutation was attested after the crucial date though it was entered prior to it would not render the entire transaction void. The view of the respondent No, 2 that the declarant "could not make any alienation after 20th of December, 1971" does not hold water and it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that respondent No, 6 had made the alienation after the crucial date. It is interesting to note that in exercising the suo motu revisional jurisdiction respondent No, 2 did not serve the petitioner with a notice and in her absence determined the question pertaining to her rights and, as such, the order passed by him is a nullity and void ab initio. He appears to have misread the stipulations of the Nikah Nama and misconstrued legal effects thereof. His order which is based on patent error on the face of record is not sustainable in the eye of law.
' In the result, we would accept the writ petition and declare the impugned order dated 30-10-1975 passed by respondent No, 2 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. 1