' Through this petition, the petitioner seeks registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.2 to 7.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his two brothers, namely, Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Sharif, purchased land measuring 236 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Chunian, through a registered sale-deed dated 10-1984, for a consideration of Rs,2,70,000 from respondents No,5 and 6 and land measuring 125 Kanals 19 Marlas from respondent No,7 for a sum of Rs,1,60,000 through a registered sale-deed dated 14-1-1987. Mutation No, 8614 was entered on the basis of the sale-deed dated 8-7-1984. However, the mutation was not sanctioned because as per the report made by the Patwari (respondent No, 4) the land was sold in excess of the vendors' entitlement from Khata No,228. The mutation was subsequently cancelled by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No,2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos.2 to 7 connived with each other and prepared a bogus resolution on 20-12-1988 showing respondents Nos.5 to 7 to be owners of the land and exchange of their land with some other persons in the consolidation scheme. It is alleged that respondents Nos.5 to 7 had no right to make the exchange after having sold the same to the petitioner and his brothers. It is further submitted that a false consolidation scheme was prepared in which respondents No,5 to 7 were illegally shown to be the owners of the disputed land. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was difference of only one maria regarding the entitlement of the vendors from Khata No,228. Hence, there was no justification to cancel the mutation on that ground alone. He also tried to urge that the mutation was actually attested on 9-2-1989 but wrongly shown to have been attested on 16-8- 1989. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents No,2 to 4 urged that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in the present petition and was not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. In this connection, he has pointed out that the petitioner had made an application before the Commissioner for holding an inquiry into the matter and that the inquiry was already being held by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Kasur, under the orders of the Commissioner, Lahore. He also pointed out that the petitioner had challenged the rejection of Mutation No,8614 by way of an appeal, which was pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Kasur. Similarly, the Consolidation scheme itself was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore. According to the learned counsel, the writ petition raises some controversial questions of fact, which may be decided by competent forums before whom the matters are already pending. He also urged that the writ petition suffered from laches as the mutation was cancelled on 16-8-1988 and the writ petition had been filed on 11-7-1989, with a delay of about eleven months. The learned counsel also urged that in view of the bar created under section 195(1)(c) of the Cr.P.C. No Court could take cognizance of the offences except on a complaint made, in writing, by the Court before whom the fraud or forgery was committed. In this connection, he placed reliance on Mst. Zahida Khatoon v.
S.H.O. PLD 1982 Lah. 601 and Amir v. S.H.O. 1988 P Cr. L J 2032. The learned counsel also pointed out that the land to the extent of 21 Kanals 2 Marlas and not merely one marla was sold in excess of the vendors' entitlement. Hence, the mutation was rightly rejected. Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents Nos.5 to 7 adopted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos.5 to 7, it was mentioned that the said respondents had nothing to do with the revenue or consolidation record and they had never appeared before the consolidation staff and never got any land in exchange from other land owners.
3. Admittedly, a number of questions of fact have been raised in the petition. The matter is being probed into at three different levels, i,e, the Commissioner, Lahore, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Kasur, and the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to allow the competent authorities to decide the matters first.
There is also force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the cognizance of the offence of fraud and forgery committed before the Revenue Authorities and the Consolidation officials can be taken only on a complaint made, in writing, by the concerned authorities. In view of the bar created under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will not be legally A possible to order registration of a criminal case. As held in Mst. Zahida Khatoon's case, the offences mentioned in section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Are nonexistent till such time a report, in writing, is made by the Presiding Officer concerned. For the same reason, F.I.R. Recorded by the police was quashed in the case of Amir v. S.H.O. 1988 P Cr. L J 2032.
4. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Writ .