' This is a petition for review of an order passed by my learned predecessor (Mr.
0. M. Qarni) on 12-7-1975 by thich he set aside the order of the learned Commissioner, Sukkur Division, dated 30-1-1975.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the review petition has been preferred under section 8 of the W. P. B.
0. R. Act, 1975 as amended and adopted by the Government of Sind. The petition for review has been argued at length by the counsel for the petitioners and he has been able to show how the petition comes within the purview of section 8 of the B.
0. R. Act. He argued that the petition is competent because it contains errors apparent the face of the record. On the competence of this review petition, learned counsel cited a number of rulings applicable which are quoted as follows:-
(I) PLD 1958 SC 201
(3) AIR 1954 SC 526
(5) PLD 1973 Note 64 at p. 84 (7) PLD 1963 (W. P.) Rev. 16 (9) PLD 1970 Sind (Rev.) 16
(II) PLD 1964 SC 74
(2) AIR 1955 Cal. 92
(4) AIR 1932 Nag. 117
(6) AIR 1929 Mad. 209
(8) PLD 1971 Sind (Rev.) 131
(10) PLD 1968 Lab. 148
(12) PLD 1964 Lah. 274 ' The errors according to him are contained in the impugned order, dated 12-7-75, while remanding ihe case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur for fresh decision on the following points:
(a) Whether the entries made in village Form No, VII in pursuance of the statement made by Topandas for sale are genuine when the book of statement itself is suspicious as pointed out.
Whether the respondents Jan Muhammad and others had agitated their claim about the disputed land at any time right from 1946 upto 1975. If so what was the result? And if not why they slept over their right for about 20 years.
(b) Whether the petitioners Abdul Aziz and others were sitting tenants i. e. Wherein cultivating possession of the disputed land at the time of surrender by refugee claimants namely S. M. Junaid and S. M. Maroof. If so hither they availed of option to purchase the land in dispute as 'sitting tenant' by 3,th April, 1962, the date prescribed for purchase of the surrendered land by the sitting tenants under the scheme."
3. However, learned counsel for respondent assailed the grounds for review by saying that they were not strong and free from errors. He too cited a ruling of Hon'ble H. C. (1969-P. 93) in a case of Allahdino V. Fakir Muhammad in support of his claim that this review is not competent.
4. The facts of the case are already given in the order of the AMBR/Commissioner's order, dated 30- 1-75 and that of the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, dated 3-10-75, which need not be reproduced.
5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned older as well as the Revenue record. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the following seven mistakes are contained in the impugned order, thus rendering it a legally defective order which may be reviewed in the interest of justice.
(i) Wrong entries of names of owners of properties.
(ii) 3rd statement difference in date i. e. 13-1-1946 and 28-3-1946.
Tapedars record V. F. VI and VII examined by D. C. Forgery pointed out.
(iv) Seal of Mukhtiarkar on page (replaced) and not on entries unlike in other ordinary cases.
(v) Respondent did not challenge in any lower Court. (Revision Petition. They filed in B.
0. R. Only entries in V. F. VII challenged)
(vi) Long standing entries cannot be set aside by summary proceedings.
(vii) 1-1-1957 on property could be treated as evacuee property.
' The crux of the case is whether the mutation Entries No, 220, 221 and 224 of V. F. VII comprising of S. Nos. 81/2, 3, 4, 91/3, 92/1, 2,6, 127/3, 34, 128/1, 2, 4, (38-04 Acres) 79/1,2, 4, 78/1, 2, 3, 4, (25-38 Acres), 68/3, 69/1, 2, 3. 4, 70/1, 2, 3, 4, 70/1A, 3A, 71/1, 2, 4, 74/4, 77/1,4 105/1, 2, 160/2 (72-17 Acres), admeasuring about 136-19 Acres of land Deh Fazal Josh Taluka Garhi Yasin in favour of the respondents are maintainable. The matter came up for decision before the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, on a reference made by A. C., Shikarpur, that the entries in question were forged and Revenue Record had been ahanged fraudulently by village s.Aff. The Deputs Commissioner, Sukkur in his exhaustive order confirmed the Khata of the above entries in the name of the respondents, with effect from the date of sale of the land in question and also held that the sale pertains to pre-partition days hence the sanction of the Custodian Evacuee Property is not necessary in this case. The view of the Deputy Commissioner has been supported by the learned Commissioner, Sukkur while deciding a revision petition from this order. Learned counsel for petitioners, however, cited a ruling (Rev- Digest-Vol: 2 P. 353) in support of his argument-that fraud charge cannot be agitated in a summary way.
6. The entries in V. F. VII S. Nos. 220 and 221 were made on the basis of the statements of Topandas and Sachanand made on 13-1-1946 in favour of the respective vendees and the Entry No, 224 in V. F.
VII was made on the basis of the statement of the vendor Jai Ramdas made on 28-3-1946, in favour of the vendees. All the three statements have been signed by the Muklitiarkar on the very date on which the said statements were recorded. The point raised by my learned predecessor as mentioned in para. 2(a) above, only relates to the statement and entries in respect of Topandas vendor. The other two statements have therefore, not been suspected which are co-related with the real contest between the parties. The other points as mentioned in para. 2(b) above was not the subject-matter of revision petition before the learned Commissioner. These are the errors apparent on the face of the record. The main contention of respondents is that the entires in V. F. VII were forged by the petitioners in collusion with the village staff. Long standing entries in revenue record should not be altered on the ground of fraud and the aggrieved party may seek remedy in a competent civil Court.
7. Having considered all these facts I see no reason for interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Deputy Commissioner in this case. I am also convinced that in the impugned order my predecessor has not applied his mind to the record on the face of which the errors as pointed out in the review petition are apparent. They are of a very important nature so much that when they did not apparently attract my predecessor's attention it culminated in a wrong and improper order.
The impugned order is, therefore, reviewed accordingly.
' Review petition is upheld.
Review . ,10111111rI.