' This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan whereby Raja Muhammad Hayat and 4 others, the petitioners, wanted this Court to declare the orders dated 17-3-1975, 23-10-1975 and 22-5-1979 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Mullen Division and Member, Board of Revenue respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading upto this petition in brief are that Nazir Ahmad petitioner No,5 sold away land measuring 827 Kanals and 12 Marlas for Rs,10,000 to Yousaf Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of Noor Ahmad and others (the legal representatives brought on the record) through registered sale-deed dated 18-3-1963. Wall Muhammad, Mushtaq Ahmad, Yousaf All respondent No, 2 (since deceased) and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 had jointly purchased land. On the basis of the sale deed, Mutation No, 1097 was sanctioned on 23-2-1967. Yousaf All by committing fraud with Muhammad Hayat petitioner No, 1 by giving wrong description of his land got exchange deed registered on 14-5-1963 whereby Yousaf All transferred 601 Kanals and 18 Marlas and got 559 Kanals and 5 Marlas from Muhammad Hayat petitioner No,
1. On the basis of the exchange deed, Mutation No, 1163 was sanctioned on 23-2-1967. Having gained knowledge of fraud, Muhammad Hayat, the petitioner, filed suit for declaration to the effect that the exchange deed was void and in-effective. In the meanwhile one Bashir Ahmad moved application before the E.A.C.O. Leiah that transaction of sale by Nazir Ahmad petitioner No, 5 in favour of Yousaf All and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 being in contravention of M.L.R. No, 64 was illegal and void. On 24-2-1971 the Assistant Commissioner/Collector recommended for the cancellation of Mutation No, 1097. On 10-3-1971 the Collector allowed permission to review the Mutation whereon the Assistant Collector cancelled the same on 22-3-1971. Consequently Mutation No, 1163 was also cancelled on 31-8-1971. On this, Muhammad Hayat petitioner withdrew his suit. Since Mst. Aisha petitioner No, 2 and Wali Muhammad petitioner No, 3 had exchanged their land with that of petitioner No, 1, they filed suit against petitioner for declaration which was decreed on 21-1-1972. On this Yousaf Ali (deceased) filed suit against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 challenging decree dated 21-1-1972.
3. The respondents also filed appeal against the cancellation of mutation which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 17-3-1975 setting aside the order of cancellation of Mutation No, 1097. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 23-10-1975. The revision filed by the petitioners also failed on 22-5-1979. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points:--
(i) that the Member Board of Revenue has not passed a speaking order;
(ii) that the reasons given by the Collector in support of his order, dated 17-3-1975 were not sound and that order has been maintained by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Member Board of Revenue without legal justification; and
(iii) that since civil suit was pending, the revenue authorities could not have cancelled the mutation.
' The learned counsel for the private respondents has, however, supported the impugned orders, 5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners, Since the revenue authorities have independent power, therefore, to my mind, the mere pendency of a civil suit could not debar the authorities to consider and decide the matter. The Assistant Commissioner/Additional Commissioner (Revenue) have concurrently found that the Mutation No, 1097 was cancelled without legal justification. They applied their conscious mind to the facts and relevant law and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. The learned Member, Board of Revenue did not see any reason to interfere with the judgments of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The learned counsel has failed to controvert the reasons given by the Assistant Commissioner and the learned Additional Commissioner. Since the Member, Board of Revenue having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel did not see any justification to interfere with the concurrent finding of the lower Courts, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by him is not a speaking order.
6. For what has been stated above, there being no merits in this petition, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.