' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 8-3-1966 passed by the Commissioner, Khairpur whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner in respect of mutation of S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Deh Choranwallo, Taluka Ubauro, District Sukkur.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed Survey Numbers stood in the following names in the Record of Rights:-
1. Ali Bux 8
2. Haleem 8 ' In the year 1931, the entry was changed in the name of Din Muhammad, vide entry, dated 27-12- 1931 on the basis of an alleged purchase of the above land, by Din Muhammad. In 1955, Lal Bux, Ghulam Kadir and Malook, descendants of the original Khatedar, moved the Deputy Collector for the correction of the changes made in 1931. The Deputy Collector rejected the petition, vide his order, dated 15-6-1965. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner, Khairpur, vide the impugned order.
3. I had heard the parties on 10-12-1970 and have heard them today.
4. The counsel for the petitioners had mainly urged that the respondent's father claimed that Survey Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Deh Choranwallo had been purchased by him from Ali Bux and Halim, vide an agreement of 1931, but actually Ali Bux had died in 1910 and the document available with the respondent was forged one. In support of his contention he had referred to entry in V. F. 111-D of the year 1910-1911 wherein a note was recorded that Ali Bux was dead in 1910-1911. He had further contended that the possession of the disputed Survey numbers was with the petitioners upto 1964 whereafter the respondent had managed to forge the entries in the Revenue Record and got the land mutated in his favour. He had stated that prior to 1964, the land was uncultivated as there was no irrigation facilities and that the facilities had been extended to the land after 1964.
5. The respondent had urged that Malook, one of the petitioners was an ex-Tapedar and that the record being referred to by him, had been forged by him in his favour. He had shown the document of 1931 alleged to have been executed by Halim and Ali Bux in favour of the respondent's father. He has also shown a copy of V. F. VII of the year 1931 regarding the mutation of the land in favour of his father.
6. The Supervising Tapedar had referred to the following record and explained the position of the case as follows:-
(i) Village Form-I (L) Year 1910-11: ' Survey S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were entered in the names of All Bux son of Haji Dakhan and Haleem son of Karimdino Dakhan in equal shares. Ali Bux son of Haji Dakhan was shown to have died in that year and the Khata of the land was mutated in favour of his son Haji son of Ali Bux Dakhan.
(ii) Village Form-I (L) Year 1917-18: ' Haji son of Ali Bux Dakhan was shown to have acquired ownership of the land by inheritance but word "shar" had been interpolated over word "Dakhan".
(iii) Village Form-V1I(B) for the Year 1926-27: ' According to Entry No, 11, the Survey numbers had been transferred from the name of Ali Bux Dakhan and Haleem Dakhan to the name of Din Muhammad Shar.
' S. T. Stated that the signature of Mr. G. S. Kehar over the entry appeared to be forged one.
(iv) Village Form No, VII (A) for the Year 1936-37: ' According to Entry No, 1, disputed land was entered in the name of Haji son of Ali Bux Dakhan and Haleem son of Karimdino Dakhan, According to note in Column No, 5 Haji son of Ali Bux was stated to have got land from Ali Bux after the death of Ali Bux.
(v) Number-Shumari for the Year 1956-57: ' The Survey numbers were entered in the names of Haji son of All Bux Haleem son of Karimdino up to the year 1964-65.
7. Interpolations were alleged in the record and I had, vide my order dated 24-2-1971 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, to hold an inquiry in the matter. His report has not been received.
8. The counsel for the respondent, however, urged that it was not proper to decide the issue of forgeries in the revenue record in summary proceedings of mutations. He contended that the entries in the record had remained for more than 30 years and that the proper course in such cases was to refer the parties to get their titles determined in civil Courts.
9. The counsel for the petitioners objected that the forgery was apparent from the face of the record and that the interests of the justice demanded that the question be settled in summary proceedings.
10. I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties. The' mutation proceedings are summary in character, and the revenue officers are not expected to go into the intricate questions of facts in such cases. It has been held in numerous rulings of the Board of Revenue, that when the question of fraud is raised the matter generally gets complicated in character which cannot ordinarily be sifted by Revenue Officers during the course of summary mutation proceedings and should be left for determination by a competent civil or criminal Court. In the present case, the fraud has been alleged and it would be in the interest of justice if the parties get their titles determined in civil Court.
11. In view of these facts, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioners may seek their remedy in civil Court.
12. The Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, may, however, complete the inquiry referred to him by me, vide my order, dated 24-2-1971 and take necessary action on administrative side against the