This single order will dispose of the above both two revision petitions as the parties are interlinked and facts are identical.
2. These revision petitions have been filed under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, against the order dated 14-6-1986, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala whereby he reviewed and cancelled his own order dated 17-3-1986.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Majid predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who owned land measuring 37 kanals and 6 marlas in village Hafizabad, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala sold 21 kanals and 1 marla of land to the respondents 1 to 5, through oral sale mutation No.3287, statedly for the purpose of `Kar Khana'. Later on Muhammad Nawaz respondent No.5 further sold his share to respondents 6 to 12 through Mutation No.3445 attested on 21-4-1971. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 Allah Ditta etc. Pre-cmpted this sale and got the decree. Abdul Majid challenged Mutation No.3287 in the Civil Court on the ground of fraud and on the basis of violation of M.L.R. 64, but the said suit was dismissed on 9-1-1980. He preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala which was pending for adjudication. The petitioner No.2 moved an application before the learned Chief Land Commissioner requesting therein that the said Mutation attested in violation of M.L.R. 64 be set aside, who was pleased to forward it to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala for an inquiry and report on 9-9-1980. The learned Collector awarded permission for review of Mutations Nos.3287 and 3445 vide his letter No.528/IIVC, dated 18-4-1982.
In compliance with the learned Collector's order Mutations Nos.3445 and 3287 were cancelled and through Schat Mutation Nos.6277 and 6278 were attested in favour of Abdul Majid's predecessor- in--interest. As and when the respondents came to know of this order, they challenged these mutations by filing appeal in the Court of the learned Collector, Hafizabad and also filed a revision in the Coysrt of the learned Additional Commissioner, against the order of the District Collector, dated 8-4-1982. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), vide his order dated 13-6-1984 decided revision petition with the directions that Assistant Collector should decide the mutations independently without any prejudice to the order of the District Collector. The learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector vide his order dated 27-6-1984 maintained the mutations and also held in his order that there was no violation of M.L.R.
64. The petitioners challenged the said order in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who vide his order dated 17-3-1986 upheld the order of the learned Collector. Through the order, dated 14-6-1986, the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) reviewed his own order dated 17-3-1986. He held in his order that the disputed sale was not for agricultural purpose in its inception nor had the land retained its agricultural character afterwards. The disputed plot is surrounded by rice-shellers, factories, shops and bungalows. The urban area of Hafizabad Municipal Committee is just at a distance of about two acres only. As there is nothing wrong with the mutation of sale 3287 attested in favour of the respondents, the same is allowed to occupy the field. This mutation should be given effect to in the Revenue papers if it has not already been incorporated. Hence these revision petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) clearly misdirected himself in law in reviewing his order dated 17-3-1986. It was neither a case of `discovery of new and important matter' nor a case of error apparent on the face of the record to justify exercise of review jurisdiction. The impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. He further argued that the sale mutations were attested in violation of M.L.R.
64. The said land was purchased for construction purposes but they brought the land under cultivation. Uptil now they did not raise any construction over the said disputed land. He further argued that the matter was referred by the learned Chief Land Commissioner to the learned Deputy Commissioner, who should have referred the matter to the learned Chief Land Commissioner as desired by him. However, the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner could not be assailed under the Land Revenue Act. Concluding his arpments, he prayed that these revision petitions be accepted.
5. Rebutting his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had got suo rnotu powers and jurisdiction to decide the case, therefore, the petitioners' plea that the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had no jurisdiction is frivolous and without any foundation. The petitioners were served through newspaper, therefore, the impugned order was passed in accordance with law. The land was purchased for building purpose for the installation of Rice Sheller and therefore, there was no violation of M.L.R.
64. He added that the petitioners had already filed Civil Suit to the effect that there was violation of M.L.R. 64 but failed. The petitioners' appeal is still pending in the Court of District Judge for adjudication. 1n the circumstances, the revision petitions may be rejected.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record reveals that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was neither a case of discovery of new and important matter nor a case of error apparent on the face of the record to justify exercising of review jurisdiction is not correct. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) did not examine the entire record and decided the appeals on 17-3-1986, therefore, he in exercising his suo motu review jurisdiction decided the case on merits. Due opportunity to be heard was afforded to the parties. The petitioners were present at time of announcement of earlier order dated 17-3-1986 but they did not appear 2nd time in spite of proclamation through Press, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte. The disputed land was purchased in 1970 by respondents Nos.1 to 5 for construction purposes, therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transaction was made in violation of M.L.R. 64, has no force. According to M.L.R. 64 the land whether cultivable or non-cultivable, which is bona fide required for the purpose of building thereon, and any land or part of land situated within the jurisdiction of Municipality should be exempted from any restrictions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of the M.L.R. 64 were B violated in the matter has no weight, as the respondents purchased it for construction of "Kar Khana" and for the reasons known to them, they did not build the same but there is ho time limit (iced for the construction, if the land had been purchased for construction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land was not urban in character, is not borne out from the record. The disputed land is situated adjacent to the Abadi, in the limits of Municipal Committee thus it is proved that the land was urban in character.
Taking into consideration the above facts I have come to the conclusion that the land was purchased for construction, therefore, the mutations were attested in accordance with law and were not hit by the provisions of M.L.R. 64. 1 fully agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. Resultantly both the revision petitions are, hereby, rejected.
The judgment of the case was reserved, therefore, parties to be informed accordingly.