' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether it was proper for the High Court to interfere by the impugned judgment, dated 25-11-1989 with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act in respect of mutation proceedings conducted under section 45 of the Balochistan Land Revenue Act.
2. The factual background of the proceedings is that the appellant claimed to have purchased from Abdul Wadood, uncle and predecessor-ininterest of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 one Shabanaroze of land and water equal to 1/5th of the total 5 Shabanaroze of land and water belonging to him. At the time of the sale possession of one acre of the land towards the sale was also handed over to the appellant. On the failure of Abdul Wadood to hand over the full property that was sold to the appellant, the latter instituted a Suit No,37 under F.C.R. On 5-6-1942 which was decreed on 17-10-1943 with regard to the remainder of the property. This decree was, however, not executed. It was not given effect to in the Revenue Record.
' The appellant again instituted a suit with regard to the remainder of property, subject-matter of the same sale. On recommendation of Jirga, a decree in favour of the appellant was passed again on 20-10-1959. On the basis of this decree, Mutation No,30 was entered but the same was cancelled before it could be attested on the ground that it violated section 64. It is not clear whether reference to section 64 was to the Balochistan Land Revenue Act or to Martial Law Regulation 64, then in force.
' A revision against the second decree, dated 20-10-1959 also failed on 12-8-1964.
' The appellant again lapsed into inactivity. It was on the 31st of.March, 1981 that he filed an application seeking correction of the record in terms of the decree, dated 20-10-1959 under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act. He also claimed that possession had been obtained by him under the decree. Assistant Commissioner/Collector allowed this application on 8-4-1981 on which a Mutation (No,67) was entered on 13-4-1981 and attested in respect of 26 rods and 8 poles of land.
The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector and directed a remand and further inquiry by order, dated 27-5-1982.
Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, after obtaining the report of the Tehsildar directed that the decree be given effect to in the Revenue Record, on' 1740-1982. On this direction Mutation No,69 in respect of 69 rods 7 poles of the land was entered.
3. Again, the matter was taken to the Additional Commissioner in appeal who by order, dated 17-4- 1985 accepted it and remanded that matter once again to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for fresh inquiry. This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue which accepted the revision and restored the order of the Collector/Assistant Commissioner, setting aside the remand order. This order of the Member, Board of Revenue was challenged by Constitution Petition which succeeded in the High Court on numerous grounds. The High Court concluded as hereunder:-- "There is no doubt that Member, Board of Revenue enjoys plenary powers for correcting illegalities or improprieties of the subordinate forums, nevertheless revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The authority in this behalf is controlled and regulated by the limitation contained in section 164 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Since appellate forum has factually highlighted serious defects necessitating remand of the case to Assistant Commissioner-cum-Collector, Pishin, therefore, unless glaring irregularity, misexercise of jurisdiction, unlawful exercise of authority, or patent illegality was disclosed, in our opinion revisional jurisdiction could not be appropriately exercised by respondent No,1. Besides question about, maintainability of the application, dated 31-3-1981 filed by respondent No,4, applicability of provisions of Limitation Act, competency of proceedings before Revenue forums without resorting to Civil Courts, propriety for transferring particular area of land in favour of respondent No,4 towards implementation of decree, dated 20-10-1959, factum of possession of respondent No,4 over area of land yet to be identified through evidence, and jurisdiction of the Collector for adjudicating upon the relief claimed by respondent No,4 in the original application; necessarily require detailed determination by the concerned forums. Therefore order of remand dated 17-4- 1985 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority was quite proper.
Learned Member, Board of Revenue has acted illegally by assuming jurisdiction for interfering with said order apparently ignoring the requirements of law. Accordingly judgment dated 9-3-1989 passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue is not sustainable. We are therefore inclined to observe that the same has been passed without lawful' authority and is of no legal effect. Petition is accordingly accepted in the above terms, with no order as to costs."
4. Leave to appeal was granted mainly to examine in the light of the earlier decisions of this Court, whether the Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked for interfering with the proceedings under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act and the decisions cited to negative such interference were, Khuda Bakhsh v. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and 3 others 1976 SCMR 26 and unreported decision in the case of Maulana Abdul Wahid v. Member-III, Board of Revenue and others (Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.80 and 81-0 of 1988, decided on 6-3-1990). Support for the view can also be found in Lal and others v. Mian Dad and another 1968 SCMR 842(2), Ahmad Khan v.
Muhammad Shafi and 4 others 1991 SCMR 352, Mian Ghulam Ahmad v. Muhammad Sarwar and others 1968 SCMR 573, Muhammad Iqbal v. SA.M. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1970 Lah. 614 and (Thakur) Nirman Singh and others v. Thakur Lal Budra Partab Narain Singh and others AIR 1926 Privy Council 100.
5. Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the principles enunciated in some of these decisions to sustain this appeal and to exclude the jurisdiction of High Court in such a matter.
6. The distinguishing feature of the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities was that it followed a decree of the Civil Court and was concerned with the implementation of it. Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act and its predecessor section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which was applicable in Balochistan at the relevant time provided as follows:-- "37. Restrictions on variations of entries in records.---Entries in recordsof-rights or in crop inspection record, except entries made in crop inspection record by Patwaris under clause (a) of section 35 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by---
(a) making entries in accordance with facts proved, or admitted to have occurred;
(b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties;
(c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them."
' Section 141 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as adapted in Balochistan provided the following law for the enforcement of orders issued by any Civil or Criminal Court:- "141. Orders of Civil and Criminal Courts for execution of processes against land or the produce thereof to be addressed to a Revenue Officer.---Orders issued by any Civil or Criminal Court for the attachment, sale or delivery of any land or interest in land, or for the attachment or sale of the produce of any land, shall be addressed to the Collector or such Revenue Officer as the Collector may appoint in this behalf, and be executed by the Collector or that officer in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable to the Court issuing the orders and with any rules consistent therewith made by the Revenue Commissioner in Balochistan with the concurrence of the High Court and the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner in Balochistan."
7. The first question that the Revenue authorities had to address themselves while implementing a decree of the Civil Court was whether the procedure prescribed in section 141 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 for execution or delivery of possession was adopted or not adopted. The appellant held a decree for joint possession of the land and section 141 made Order XXI, Rule 35(2) of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to the execution through the Collector. If such an execution had not taken place, the correction of the entries in the Revenue Record on the strength of the decree could be made under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act provided the decree was found to be binding on the parties i.e,, it was held to be efficacious and executable. Neither there is a finding recorded by any of the authorities whether procedure prescribed under section 141 of the Land Revenue Act was adopted, nor whether the decree on the date it was sought to be given effect to in the Revenue Record was binding on the parties or not. Such preconditions having not been satisfied, the order giving effect to the decree could not be passed.
' Similarly, it is not clear to us as to how a decree for joint possession of a share in the joint property could be translated by the Revenue Authorities as 26 rods 8 poles in Mutation Nos.67 and 69 rods 7 poles in Mutation No,69. In implementing the decree under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, the Revenue Authorities could not go beyond the decree.
8. A contention raised at times by the appellant before the Revenue Authorities was that the independent of the execution and independent of the entries of the Revenue Record, the appellant had been able to obtain the possession of the land sold to him at the spot under an arrangement with the vendors. This part of the claim was not relatable to the decree, its execution or incorporation under Revenue Record and had to be decided by the Revenue authorities themselves without interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction as such, leaving the matter to be finally decided by the Civil Court if at all need arose.
9. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue in Constitutional jurisdiction was liable to interference because it did not while implementing the decree of the Civil Court, examine the jurisdictional ground which could have justified the implementation thereof under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector to whom the proceedings have been remanded will examine whether the decree was executed in terms of section 141 of the Land Revenue Act and whether, if not executed, it was still binding and the appellant could claim correction of the Revenue Record on its strength. If so, whether it had to be only a decree of joint possession without reference to any particular land or its area. It is only on determination of these facts that further action in accordance with law shall be taken.
No order is made as to costs.