' The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Abdul Rauf owned land measuring 1064K-12M in Chak No, 111/7-R, Tehsil Chichawatni district Sahiwal. He was wifeless and issueless. At the same time he was a declarant under the Land Reforms Act-I1 of 1977. He alienated land measuring 86K-8M in favour of his sister, Mst. Sultana Bibi by way of Tamleek vide Mutation No, 336 sanctioned on 12-11- 1989. He also transferred land measuring 78K-16M to Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Asghar, petitioners vide Tamleek Mutation No, 337 dated 12-11-1979. Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Asghar were/are the sons of his cousin, Muhammad Shall. Through another Mutation No, 338, dated 17-11-1989, Abdul Rauf got back the land holding, donated by him for public purposes. Allah Ditta, Respondent No,1, a tenant, was entitled to the allotment of the land to be surrendered by Abdul Rauf, declarant. He, therefore, approached the Distirct Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner, Sahiwal with the request that Mutation Nos. 336 and 337 may be cancelled, as the same were hit by the provisions of MLR 115. The District Collector, Sahiwal vide his order dated 15-12-1986 directed suo motu review of Mutation No, 337 as it was sanctioned in contravention of para 6 of the Land Reforms Act-II of 1977. The District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner had observed in his order dated 12-6-1986 that Mutation No, 337 was also violative of the provisions of Muslim Law. The District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner deferred the decision in respect of Mutation Nos. 336 and 338 till the determination of the land holding of Abdul Rauf in case "Allah Ditta v. Abdul Rauf etc." pending in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Land Commissioner, Sahiwal. The petitioners challenged the orders of the District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan,. Major Taj-ud-Din, Respondent No,3 and Jahanzeb, Respondent No,4 who had purchased the land measuring 487K-10M from Abdul Rauf, declarant were impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings pending before him by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. After hearing the arguments of the parties the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan dismissed the Revision Petition of the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 23-5-1989.
2. Aggrieved with the impugned order the petitioners came up with the instant revision petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions during the Course of arguments:-
(i) Respondent No,1 did not mention in his application as to how much land was owned by Abdul Rauf in excess of the ceiling, fixed by the Land Reforms Act-II of 1977.
(ii) The District Collector/Deputy Land Commissioner called for the reports from the field staff. One report indicated that Abdul Rauf possessed more land that what was allowed under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, while the second report made out that no area was to be surrendered by him.
(iii) The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan failed to mention the specific figure of land liable to be surrendered by Abdul Rauf, in his order dated 23-5-1989.
(iv) The District Collector had erred in law by allowing the review of Mutation No,337 whereas he had not touched Mutation No,336. As a matter of fact he should have passed orders regarding Mutation No, 336 in the first instance, if he was convinced that Abdul Rauf, owned land in excess of the prescribed limit.
(v) Allah Ditta, Respondent No,1 had no locus standi to submit an application to the District Collector under section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
(vi) Tamleek is a sort of Gift and Tamleek can be made in favour of anybody by the donor. The only question is that the Tamleek in favour of the heirs is exempted from the payment of Stamp duty while Tamleek in favour of the non-heirs can be made by paying Stamp duty. As far as Mutation No,337 is concerned, the petitioners paid the requisite Stamp duty on 6-1-1986 on demand made by the Revenue Authorities and as such the validity of Mutation No, 337 cannot be questioned.
(vii) No relief had been claimed by the petitioners against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as they had no concern with the disputed Mutation No, 337. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan for impleading them as a party was bad in law.
(viii) The Shariat Court of Pakistan had declared the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977 as un- islamic.
4. Ch. Suleman Akhtar, counsel for respondent No,1 had stated at the Bar on 5-3-1990 that he had no objection to the acceptance of the Revision petition filed by the petitioners. Hence he did not argue the case. The learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 raised the following contentions in rebuttal:--
(a) Once the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 the Board of Revenue was not competent to exercise the same powers with respect to the same case under the said section. The present petition, therefore, was not maintainable. He placed reliance on PLD 1986 Peshawar-67, and a number of other rulings.
(b) Abdul Rauf, declarant was an owner of 139 acres of land. As per law he could retain 125 acres and the rest was to be surrendered by him.
(c) The declarant avoided to surrender excess land. So he alienated land measuring 86K-8M by way of Tamleek to his sister vide Mutation No, 336, dated 12-11-1979, He further alienated land measuring 78K-16M through Tamleek in favour of non-heirs i,e. The petitioners vide Mutation No, 337 dated 12-11-1979. This Mutation was hit by the provisions of Land Reforms Act as well as the provisions of Muhammadan Law.
(d) (d) Mutations Nos. 336 and 337 were sanctioned on 12-11-1979 while Mutation No, 338 was sanctioned 5 days later on 17-11-1979.
(c) Tamieek Mutation No,337 was sanctioned on 12-11-1979 whereas the Stamp duty in respect thereof was paid in the year 1986 on the report of the Inspection Team of the Board of Revenue, Punjab.
(f) Respondents Nos.3 and 4 had purchased land measuring 487K-10M from Abdul Rauf and the petitioners had filed pre-emption suit against them on the basis of their superior rights conferred upon them by Mutation No, 337. In the circumstances, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were directly hit by transaction made through Mutation No,337 and that is why they were impleaded as a party by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan. The petitioners did not file any revision against the acceptance of their application for making them a necessary party. They had raised a general objection during the course of arguments.
5. I have considered the arguments of the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
The fate of the case depends on the following issues which arise from the pleadings of the contesting parties:-
(i) Whether the act of the donor alienating his property by way of Tamleek to the petitioners was valid; Was the same an attempt to escape from the provisions of Land Reforms Act of 1977.
(ii) Whether Respondents Nos.3 and 4 were a proper party to the proceedings;
(iii) Whether this Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 when the revisional powers had already been invoked by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). Multan.
6. The word `Tamleek' is derived from English Law which means a 'Family settlement'.
' According to Black's Law Dictionary-- "Family settlement is an agreement between members of a family for settling the distribution of family property among them. It is an arrangement or an agreement, between heirs of a deceased person, by which they agree on distribution or management of estate without administration by Court having jurisdiction of such administration proceedings. It is an agreement made between a father and his son or children or between brothers to dispose of property in a different manner from that which would otherwise take place."
A family settlement in Mohammadan Law is from its very nature a transaction which must be distinguished from Hiba or Gift.
' A family settlement in Pakistan is known as Tamleek and according to it a person distributes his property among his legal heirs during his life time. In the instant case the petitioners are the sons of Muhammad Shah, cousin of Abdul Rauf, donor. They did not come within the definition of legal heirs during the lifetime of Muhammad Shall. They were, therefore, not entitled to get share of the property of Abdul Rauf vide Mutation No, 337 which was sanctioned in utter disregard of law. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Tamleek could be made in favour of non- heirs by the by paying stamp duty is not acceptable because the Tamleek was entered in the year 1979 and stamp duty was paid in the year 1986. The said duty was paid in the wake of objection raised by the Inspection Team of the Board of Revenue in order to save the illegal transaction. It is thus clear that Mutation No, 337 was sanctioned without any legal authority. So it was void.
The learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 had carried out the I exact calculation of the area which Abdul Rauf, declarant possessed in excess of, the ceiling, laid down by the Land Reforms Act of 1977. Prima facie, Abdul Rauf C was hit by the said Act. Therefore, the transfer of any land by him before his entitlement was determined, was hit by section 6 of the land Reforms Act of 1977.
' From the above discussion it may he concluded that the decision on Issue No, (i) (mentioned in para 5) favours respondents 3 and 4.
7. As far as the question of impleading Respondents No, 3 & 4 as a party (Issue No, (ii) para 5) is concerned, the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan was not assailed independently.
' The contention of the petitioners (raised during the course of arguments) to the effect that they could not be impleaded as a party by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan has no force. Mutation No, 337 was sanctioned at the instance of Abdul Rauf in order to provide the right of pre-emption to the petitioners against Respondents Nos.3 and 4 who had purchased land from Abdul Rauf. Both Maj. Taj-ud-Din, Respondent No,3 and 1 Jehanzeeb, Respondent No,4 were thus interested and aggrieved persons- within the said Court comes to the conclusion that such a party is necessary for the fair decision of the case or appeallrevision. The Additional Commissioner (Cons), Multan had, therefore, rightly impleaded Respondents Nos.3 and 4 as a necessary party and his order on this point does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
8. As regards the last issue is concerned, i,e. Issue No, (iii) in para 5, the learned counsel for Respondents Nos.3 and 4 had stressed the point that second revision before the Board of Revenue was not competent. He had relied mainly on PLD 1986 Peshawar 67. The facts of the case leading to the ruling of the Peshawar High Court not on all fours with the facts of the instant case. A plain reading of section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act makes it abundantly clear that the Board of Revenue is competent to hear revision (first or second) against the order of the lower Court, passed in appeal or revision. The main object of section 164 is to correct miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, the Board of Revenue can interfere with the orders of the lower Court even at a belated stage in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, in a case of miscarriage of justice. Generally the second revision would be justified only if there had been any wrong exercise of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts below or if there was any material illegality or irregularity.
The findings of a fact concurrently given by the Courts below cannot be interfered with in revision unless there has been a material irregularity in the manner, it has been arrived it. In the present case, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in respect of Mutation No, 337 did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity .There was thus no need to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
9. The long and the short of what has been stated in the proceedings paras (paras 5 to 8) is that the impugned order, being sound and legal, does not call for F any interference. The result is that the same is maintained and the Revision Petition is dismissed.