' These five revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 29-4-1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur Division by which he accepted nine appeals of the respondents and set aside Mutation No,413 and directed the petitioners to seek remedy in the civil Court. As the facts of the cases are similar, therefore, these revisions will be disposed of by this single order.
2. The counsel for the petitioners stated that respondent had wrongly got land measuring 607 kanals 4 marlas allotted to him on Q.P.R. In Mauza Goth Kot Jangoo, Tehsil Sadiqabad and that he sold this area to the following parties as per sale mutations mentioned against each- {{TABLE}} Mutation No, Area sold Name of vendee Kanals Marla 237 dated 18-10-1959. 261-0 Noor Muhammad etc. 241/247 dated 20.2-1960 88-0 Khushi Muhammad etc. 242 dated 20-2-1960. 48-0 Muhammad Khan 248 dated 18-5-1960.
32.0 Noor Muhammad etc. 249 dated 18-5-1960 16-0 Faiz Muhammad 282 dated 2-3-1961. 13-0 Umar Din etc. 283 dated 2-3-1961. 170-0 Umar Din.
' He further stated that on the enforcement of M.L.Rs, 84 and 89/91, the respondent surrendered the entire above-mentioned area. Later on respondent told the vendees that if they wanted to get land they should deposit the price of the land in their names. The vendees agreed and the respondent applied to purchase this land at the rate of Rs,10 per PU. Consequently the price of the land was deposited by the vendees. Subsequently Mutation No,380 was got entered by the respondent in the presence of the mutations mentioned above. This was not sanctioned. Thus, the land was not transferred in the name of Aziz Hassan. After about three years Mutation No, 413 was entered and sanctioned. The petitioners' counsel further stated that in the meantime the price of the land appreciated and out of sheer greed the respondent lodged appeals in the Court of AC/Collector, Sadiqabad after 22 years for the cancellation of the first six out of the seven mutations mentioned above. The AC/Collector vide his order dated 17-7-1984 dismissed the appeals and directed him to go to the Civil Court if he was interested to seek his remedy. The respondent thereafter lodged revision petitions before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur. The learned counsel also stated that in the meantime a revision petition was decided by M.B.R. On 21-2-1985 which declared Mutation No,413 null and void and it was clearly mentioned in the said order that the land would not be entered in the name of Aziz Hassan. This pertains to Mutation No,283. The learned counsel stated that the Additional Commissioner did not apply his mind to the case, that he misread the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue and accepted the revision petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention particularly to the following portion of the order dated 21-2- 1985 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue:-- "The fact that respondent No,1 Syed Aziz-ul-Hassan succeeded in having this land re-mutated in his favour after surrendering claim over this land under M.L.R. No,89/91 did not entitle him to re- acquire fresh proprietary rights. The land would be deemed to have been legally transferred in favour of the petitioner. Further unless the decision on Mutation No,380 were set aside in appeal/revision, a new mutation could not have been entered in respect of this land."
' The learned counsel for respondent stressed that the respondent was approximately allotted 607 kanals 4 marlas against his claim and the whole of it was surrendered under M.L,R. No,84, 89/91 including the land of Mauza Goth Jhango. He further pleaded that the sales were fictitious and Mutation No,413 had rightly been cancelled by the learned Additional Commissioner as it was already declared void by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue on 21-2-1985.
5. I have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the record.
The mutations mentioned in para 3 above were sanctioned during the period from October 1959 to March 1961. It does not he in the mouth of the respondent to say after more than two decades that the said sales were fictitious. I am afraid this is not right forum to agitate this matter for alleged fraud/fictitious transactions for which he will have to go to a civil Court, to establish his case. I also find that the learned Additional Commissioner had not read carefully the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The order was passed in different context and still on the relevant point the learned Member made it clear that Aziz-ul-Hasan after surrendering claim over the land under M.L.R. 89/91 was not entitled to re-acquire it as it stood lawfully transferred to another person. In addition, it has been clearly laid down in PLD 1975 Lahore 1423 that only such transfers would be void as would be found in excess of the fresh entitlement of the claimant. It is, therefore, necessary in these cases to find out the entire reduced entitlement of the respondent. Only such mutations could be reviewed which were found beyond the fresh reduced entitlement of the respondent. For these reasons the case requires re-examination. The revision petitions are accepted, the impugned orders of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, are set aside and the cases are remanded to him for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.