JUDGMENTIHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.-The petitioners through this Constitutional petition have prayed that orders dated 1.12.1984, 28.11.1985, 28.8.1986 and 30.5.1989 passed by the Revenue Authorities are illegal, inoperative and void.
2. The relevant facts are that mutation No.16 dated 28.6.1954 was sanctioned in chak No.45/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan in respect of the inheritance of Ghulam Muhammad and on the basis of this mutation No.58 dated 5.10.1952 was sanctioned in village Sheneka, District Sheikhupura. This mutation was challenged by Mst Amna claiming to be daughter of Ghulam Muhammad through an appeal before the Collector. The same was dismissed vide order dated 25.6.1971. These orders were assailed through second appeal before Additional Commissioner, who accepted the appeal set-aside the mutation and remanded the matter to Collector Grade-II, Sheikhupura for fresh inquiry and decision. Muhammad Ali etc. Impugned this order through revision petition in the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.1973. Thereafter they filed W.P. No.2004/73, which was dismissed on 20.3.1984 with the observation that proper remedy is suit for declaration.
This order was assailed further before the Hon''be Supreme Court but since stay was not granted, therefore, civil petition was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 14.1.1985. In the meanwhile, Collector grade-II passed the fresh order dated 1.12.1984. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the same before respondents No.2 and 3, who dismissed their appeals vide orders dated 28.11.1985 and 28.8.1986 and thereafter they filed a revision petition before Board of Revenue. The same was, also, dismissed on 30.5.1989. The petitioners have now assailed the last mentioned for orders through this Constitutional petition.
3. The petition was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents No.1 to 3, 4 to 14, 16 to 32 excluding heirs of respondent No.25 have appeared and contested the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the sanction of mutation is only for fiscal purposes and does not decide title or status of the parties. It is submitted that it is established law by this time that intricate questions of law and facts cannot be raised and decided by the Revenue Authorities in mutation proceedings and the same should be adjudicated by the Courts of general jurisdiction i.e. Civil Courts. The arguments on the preliminary objection are concluded with the submission that in this view of the matter, the petitioners have an adequate remedy and they are not aggrieved persons. The learned counsel, in^his behalf, has referred to judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Iqbal Vs. SA.M. Khan. Member. Board of Revenue. West Pakistan Lahore (P.L.D. 1970 Lahore 614) and also to the judgment in the earlier writ petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order dated 2.11.1972, whereby Additional Commissionar remanded the case to Collector grade-II for fresh inquiry and decisions till holds field as it was not set-aside either by this Court or by Hon''be Supreme Court. It is added that the respondents No.1 to 3 have made wrong assumptions of law and facts, which resulted in a wrong decision.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection and gone through the law and precedent cases. In order to better appreciate the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
It is essential to examine the purpose and scope of mutation proceedings by the Revenue Authorities. The revenue record is maintained for fiscal purposes and it is not record of title. The purpose of the mutation is to keep the record up-to-date. It is unfortunate that the Revenue Authorities right at the first step instead of directing the parties to have recourse to civil Court in case of intricate questions of law and facts, proceeded to adjudicate the matter. This opens up a gate for futile and unnecessary litigation. It is, therefore, desirable that the moment Revenue Authority while dealing with the sanction of a mutation should stay its hands the moment the parties raise intricate questions of law and facts. This will not only save the poor agriculturist of great financial stress but also do away with futile and useless litigation on the one hand and on the other hand, it will help to plug the sources of corruption in Revenue Department. The point can be amplified with reference to the present case. Now if the Collector grade-II had stopped his hands and advised the parties to seek declaration from civil Court as to their rights then it would have saved one round of litigation upto Supreme Court and the second round upto this Court at least.
But on the other hand, the moment he passed the adverse order then the other party felt compelled to fight the matter as it is and try its luck at least upto the level of the Board of Revenue.
Let copy of this judgment be sent to Secretary Revenue for necessary action.
6. The parties were ill advised to go on with this litigation after the judgment of this Court in W.P.
No.2004/73 and observation of learned Member Board of Revenue made in his order dated 30.5.1989 to the. Effect that the long standing entries in the revenue record should be left fo^he decision of civil Court. In this case the petitioners are claiming to be h#rs of MstAmna and Bakho daughter of Mst.Raj Bibi while the other side has taken up the plea that Mst.Raj Bibi was not one of the window and infact Ghulam Muhammad had only two wives and not three. The determination of this and the question of which law is applicable was totally beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities while deciding the mutation.
7. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed as incompetent. However, there is no order as to costs and petitioners if so advised can seek redress of their grievances against the orders of the Revenue Authorities before the Civil Court.