' This is a revision petition against the order dated 17-4-1970 by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he rejected the petitioner's appeal in respect of entries in Record of Rights Regarding S. Nos. 65/1 to 6, 66/1 to 12, 87/1 to 12, Deh 338, Taluka Jamesabad.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner claims that the disputed land belonged to his father and had been mutated in the petitioner's name after the death of his father some time back but that one flak Muhammad had fraudulently declared the petitioner as dead and got the Khata of the disputed land changed in his own name. Tbis mutation is alleged to have taken place in 1945.
The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Tbarparkar for cancellation of the mutation in 1969 but the Deputy Commissioner advised him to seek his remedy in civil Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad vide the impugned order.
3. I heard the parties on 7-10-1970, 18-11-1970 and 19-4-1971. Parties had urged the following points :-
4. PETITIONER "(1) Fraud had been played against the petitioner and he was shown as dead by one Haji Muhammad who got the Khata of the petitioner's land changed in his own name in 1945. The petitioner had photo with the family of the respondent which indicated that the respondent had knowledge about the petitioner and they played fraud deliberately (photo produced).
(ii) The petitioner had come to know about the fraud in 1951 and he had made application to the Revenue Commissioner for Sind at that time for restoration of the mutation of the disputed land in his favour and he was informed by him under his Endorsement No, S-15 6 4G/51, dated 17-4-1951 to approach the Collector. The petitioner then moved the Collector on 28-5-1951. The application was returned to the petitioner for showing correct name of the Deh. The petitioner had been applying to the authorities there after but the copies of the applications made by him after 1951 were not available with him nor any receipt was available with him. He had then received notice from Mukhtiarkar in 1968 calling upon him to adduce evidence in support of his case.
(iii) The bar of limitation would not be applicable in this case as the petitioner had no knowledge about the fraud committed against ban vide PLD 1962 Rev.
61.
(iv) It was mandatory for the Revenue authorities to look into such cases on revenue side vide Note 22 below section 53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Revenue Officer and not the petitioner had been cheated by respondent and as such the. Revenue Courts were competent to hear the case vide PLD (W. P.) 1967 32 and PLD 1962 Lah.
61. The orders of the lower Courts asking the petitioner to seek his remedy in the civil Court was not justified."
5. RESPONDENT "(a) Muhammad Ramzan died in 1928. He was the original owner. One Ghulam Nabi son of Muhammad Ramzan was brought over in the record of rights as his heir. That Ghulam Nabi was two years old at that time. Khata of Ghulam Nabi was mutated in the name of Haji Muhammad in 1945. At that time Ghulam Nabi should be 18 years old. From 1945 to 1968 Ghulam Nabi kept quiet over his rights. He did not come to the lands during this period. That Ghulam Nabi actually died in 1945 and the petitioner was imposter and was quite different person.
(b) In 1965, the father of the respondent made a family settlement and sold the disputed land to his two sons Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Murad by registered sale-deed and they were in possession of the land. Their father was in possession of the land since 1945. The petitioner could not take possession of the land from them through revenue Courts even by proving his identity vide paragraph (i) of the Revenue Department Standing Order No, 17.
(c) According to Standing Order No, 17, no mutation is to be altered by the Revenue Courts if it stood records for 30 years and the matter is to be decided by civil Court. The question of fact was whether Ghulam Nabi was son of Jan Muhammad or son of. Muhammad Ramzan and this question could be adjudicated upon by the civil Court. The civil Court can.Decide the complicated question of facts and Law vide PLD 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 233 and PLD 1950 Pb. (Rev.)408.
(d) The present petitioner had studied in Noor Muhammad High School, Hyderabad in 1933-34 and his name was entered there as Ghulam Nabi son of Jan Muhammad."
6. The attorney for the petitioner further contended that after death of the father of the petitioner, he had been brought up by Jan Muhammad, a friend of his father as the petitioner was orphan and it was possible that the name of the petitioner's father Might have been shown as Jan Muhammad by Jan Muhammad but he was actually son of Muhammad Ramzan. He also contended that Jan Muhammad had no issue and he was a municipal employee and that Jan Muhammad died on 28-1-1940 and a suit was filed by his brother for G. P. Fund arrears of Jan Muhammad claiming to be his only successor. The attorney further contended that in that suit the wife of the deceased had claimed that the petitioner was son of Jan Muhammad but it was held by the Court vide decree dated 22-12-1941 that the petitioner was neither son nor adopted son of Jan Muhammad. He also produced a certificate from the Chairman, Union Committee No, 1, Cantt.
Hyderabad to the effect that the petitioner was son of Ramzan.
7. The counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents were not a party before the civil Court deciding question 6f succession of Jan Muhammad and that the decree of civil Court was by a compromise. He further argued that Ghulam Nabi was minor at that time and he was not a party in the case and the decree is nullity in the eye of law so far as Ghulam Nabi is concerned because Ghulam Nabi was minor and his interest were not safeguarded by the Court. He also argued that the photo could not prove the parentage and the certificate of the Chairman was not based on any documents.
8. I have considered the arguments putforth by the parties. The main issue involved in the case is whether the petitioner is son of Muhammad Ramzan, the original owner of the disputed land or son of Jan Muhammad. The entries in the School Register show that Ghulam Nabi is not a son of Jan Muhammad. This is a complicated question of fact. There are numerous rulings on the point that the Revenue Authorities should not take upon themselves the responsibilities of the civil Court to adjudicate upon the complicated question of fact in summary mutation proceedings. The petitioner also alleges that fraud had been played with him by the respondents. As rightly held by Mr. Nasir Ahmed, C. S. P., the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, in his order dated 29th July 1963 in R.
0. R. No, 280 and 337 of 1961-62 Muhammad Salim Khan v. Mst. Gulshan Begum reported in Revenue Rulings Volume II page 353 and in his order dated 28th February 1964 R.
0. R. No, 338 of 1963-64 PLD 1964 W P (Rev.) 101, question of fraud cannot be sifted by Revenue Officers during summary mutation proceedings and such matters should be left for decision by competent civil or Criminal Courts.
9. According to the petitioner, the fraud came to his knowledge in 1951 and he had moved the Revenue Commissioner for Sind at that time and he was directed to approach the Collector. The petitioner moved the Collector on 28-5-1951 but the application was returned to him for showing correct name of the Deh. The petitioner failed to show that he pursued the matter after 1951 till 1968 and his silence for the period of 17 years could not be explained by him. The possession of the land has remained with the respondents. Under these circumstances, I am afraid it would not be proper for the Revenue Authorities to adjudicate upon the question of fact about the identity of the petitioner and about the legality of his claim and whether any fraud had been committed with the petitioner. These questions can best be decided by the civil Court. The order of the Additional Commissioner is, therefore, quite justified in the circumstances of the case and the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. The petitioner may if be likes, seek remedy in civil Court.