' Brief facts of the case arc that the petitioner by way of registered sale-deed dated 9-6-1973 purchased 3 Kanals 11 Marlas, equivalent to 78/3411 shares out of a joint Khata of 170 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Binda Sandila, for building purposes. Mutation No,247 was duly sanctioned on 19-8-1974. The vendor filed an application on 9-1-1988 before the District Collector, Multan requesting therein for the review of above said mutation as being hit by the provisions of MLR-115 because the land was sold for construction purposes but the vendee was cultivating the land. The District Collector on 13-6-1988 accorded the permission to review the mutation. Being aggrieved by the said order of the District Collector the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated the 19-2-1989 dismissed the same on The ground that the petitioner did not construct any house on the suit land and further in view of the said transaction, the petitioner had obtained a decree from the Civil Court in a pre-emption case.
Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that vide PLD 1989 FSC 80, paragraph 24 of MLR 115 was held to be inconsistent with the injunctions of Islam and Shariat, and amendments were given effect from 1-1-1990. The petitioner had purchased 3 Kanals and 18 Marlas land for residential purposes out of the joint khata of 170 Kanals 11 Marlas, and had constructed a room thereon.
However, in March 1976, one Abdul Khalid filed a pre-emption suit being a co-sharer, but the case was decided in petitioner's favour and the appeal is pending before the District Judge. Thereafter, the respondent applied for review of the mutation to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector which was allowed on 13-6-1988 behind the petitioner's back overlooking a delay of 12 yeaRs, The Revenue Courts could not have set aside mutation of a registered deed and para 25 (5) of MLR 115 is not applicable to this case. The learned counsel relied upon 1989 SCM R 130 and PLD 1959 SC 9 that a co-sharer in joint possession cannot change nature of the property and 1984 CLC 737, to the effect that no application of a party who has himself infringed para. 25 of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, can be riled before any of forums provided therein. It was further asserted by the Patterned counsel for the petitioner that he had been prevented from construction. Of the house due to stay orders issued by various Courts.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent in rebuttal maintained that in Kharif 1987 the nature of the property has been shown as agricultural and the petitioner had stated in his pre-emption suit that he had obtained this land for agricultural purpose which was not in accordance with the registered. Sale-deed. The petitioner had violated the conditions of the registered sale deed because he did not construct a house and therefore he could not use the land for agricultural purposes. The stay order was vacated on 1-9-1978 and the petitioner thereafter was in a position to construct the house.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the case record. It is evident that the respondent vide Mutation No,247 attested on 19-8-1974, had sold 78/3411 share measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas to the petitioner without mentioning any specific khasra number. However, this sale, unless for residential purpose, was hit by provisions of MLR-115 and therefore it was reflected in the registered sale-deed as well as in the mutation as sale for residential purposes. Subsequently, one Abdul Khaliq Khan filed a declaratory suit for restraining the petitioner from changing the status of the property. The petitioner was not in possession of any specific khasra number and-therefore he could not be expected to implement the conditions- mentioned in the registered deed. The respondent applied for review of Mutation No,247 to the Collector who decided that the vendee should have built the house on the land but he was using the land for agricultural purposes for the last 14 years, After a mutation based on a registered deed had been sanctioned then it was not open to the Revenue Authorities to question whether the contract between the parties was implemented or not. If the respondent was aggrieved, then he should have taken recourse to the Civil Court for implementation of the contract between the parties. The learned District Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner have also overlooked the fact that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and the existence of the registered deed has not been denied by the respondent applicants. Unless the petitioner was shown to be in exclusive possession of specific khasra number as a result of partition he was not in a position to have complied with the agreement, as held in 1989 SCM R 130. In these circumstances the revision petition succeeds and the impugned orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 19-2-1989 and of the Collector dated 13-6-1988 are set aside.