The dispute relates to land situated in Chak No. 127/N.B Tehsil and District Sargodha. According to the petitioner, it was owned by Mst. Bassan who gifted the same to him. He filed a suit challenging the legality of correction of Mutation No. 3006 dated 24-1-1985. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application of the petitioner for issuance of temporary injunction held that Mst.
Bassan the sister of the petitioner who had gifted the entire and in village to the petitioner could not do so because she was held to be owner to the extent of 1/4th share by the High Court and Supreme Court in the previous litigation, also dismissed the suit by Judgment and decree dated 24-1-1987 on the ground that it was barred by principles of res judicata. This was assailed in appeal which has also been dismissed by judgment dated 10-5-1988.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though Mst. Bassan the donor was held to be entitled to 1/4th share in the land left by Noor Din deceased husband of Mst. Bassan but she could gift away the entire land in Chak No. 127/M.B. As it represented her 4/4th share in the whole of the land left by Noor Din in various villages; therefore, mutation of gift No. 765 of the entire land, was correctly sanctioned w favour of the petitioner on 8-1-1973 which could not be corrected through impugned Mutation No. 3006 dated 24-1-1985 reducing the entitlement of petitioner on the basis of the said gift in the land in dispute to 1 /4th share.
3. I am afraid, it is difficult to accept this contention. In the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1/R of 1973 dated 3-4-1975 it was clearly held that:- "Mst. Bassan could also not raise the plea that she was entitled to only 26 Kanals of land in Chak No. 127/M.B., As stated above, she had not filed any, appeal after the mutation Annexure `F was corrected in 1967, and the petitioners were included in the mutation as heirs of Nur Din entitled to area in the above Chak. She also did not at any stage surrender the allotment made in Chak No. 42/M.B. The order of allotment was final against her also."
This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court through a petition for Special Leave to Appeal which admittedly also failed. Mst. Bassan was one of the respondents in the said writ petition as is manifest from the record of the writ petition which wag summoned by me and perused. The Revenue authorities implemented the said judgments of High Court and Supreme Court through the impugned mutations to which. No exception can be taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that Noor Din left land in various villages including Chak No. 113/SB, Chak No. 42/SB and disputed Chak 127/NB. He maintained that Mst. Bassan was holding 1/4th share in all the lands in these chaks, according to the findings of the High Court and Supreme Court. According to him the other shareholders retained the entire land in Chak No. 113/SB including that of shares of Mst. Bassan in lieu of surrender by them their shale in the disputed land in Chak No. 127/NB and the total entitlement of Bassan' in all the lands was consolidated in Chak No. 127/NB. He also urged that the other shareholders exclusively sold the entire land in Chak No. 113/SB as also surrendered land in Chak No. 127/NB as owners which was in fact a. Family arrangement between the parties therefore, Mst. Bassan could gift the total land in Chak No. A27/NB as owner thereof. I am afraid these pleas cannot be entertained in these proceedings at this stage. In the suit the petitioner only sought relief against impugned mutation through which judgments of High Court and Supreme Court were implemented and petitioner was allowed to retain 1/4th share which was held to be owned by Mst. Bassan. If his case was that Mst. Bassan A on account of some 'family arrangement was given the entire land in Chak No. 121/NB in lieu of her total entitlement in the lands of Noor Din deceased in all the said Chaks which was acted upon as alleged, he can seek by filing a separate-suit because it is a separate cause of action based on different alleged facts.
5. The two Courts below have not committed any material irregularity and illegality in passing the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, the revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.