' This is a suo motu revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 raised a preliminary objection that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. Under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, limitation is of 90 days and the present revision petition is therefore time-barred. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit for declaration which has already been filed and is pending adjudication in the Civil Court. The relief sought for is for cancellation of the mutations in dispute and for setting aside the power of attorney. Under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code if the same issue is raised before two Courts, then the first in terms of time may proceed. Under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act mutations passed on registered sale- deeds cannot be cancelled unless such sale-deeds are set aside. Presumption of truth is attached to the power of attorney under Article 95 of Oanun-e-Shahadat and the Revenue Officer is bound to rely on such a presumption. All the mutations have been given effect in the revenue records and, under para.7.30 of the Land Records Manual, cannot be reviewed without decree of the Civil Court.
Further that a question of fact cannot be looked into by this Court under section 164 ibid.
2. The learned counsel for the other answering respondents also maintained that revision is not competent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner citing PLD 1973 Revenue 29 (Sindh) The State v. Abdul Hameed Jetoi and three others, maintained that the present revision petition is on all fours with that cited case. The respondent No,2 Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah was serving Brigadier at Multan during Martial Law (1977 to 1985) and was using his official position to coerce the Revenue authorities to undertake illegal acts and all the Revenue Officers were helpless before him and obliged to carry out his wishes whether lawful or otherwise.
' Therefore, the Board of Revenue should interfere to correct the wrong done to the petitioner.
Relying on PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1 Ghulam Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi the learned counsel maintained that when there is fraud in revenue cases, revision is not barred by limitation and in any case there is no limitation prescribed in the law for a suo motu revision by the Board of Revenue. Respondents can only question jurisdiction of the Court and limitation in preliminary objections. As held in PLD 1989 Lahore 320 and 1990 CLC 1003 in 7.11 type applications, it is axiomatic that such applications cannot be filed in the superior Courts without leave. The respondents however have not come with clean hands to the Court as fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings.
If the petitioner had not filed a civil suit then other remedies available would have become time- barred and the present application was filed before the civil suit. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 the present petition should proceed being earlier in terms of time within the meaning of section 10 of the C.P.C. The respondents have moved a miscellaneous application regarding maintainability before the Civil Court as well. The case is whether the petitioners had appointed respondent No,2 as her general attorney. The petitioner had created a Trust and the property in dispute should have gone to that Trust.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel were heard on 10-12-1991. The learned counsel have also filed written arguments subsequently to the above effect. It was contended by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 herein that PLD 1973 Revenue 29 is not applicable to the present proceedings because in that case the procedure for the execution of sale deeds and sanctioning of mutations was not followed. In the present case mutations were sanctioned on the basis of a duly executed power of attorney which has not been held fraudulent by any Court of law. In the Jatoi case fraud was proved by the evidences of the Handwriting Experts and the statements recorded in the lower Court and the Court in its revisional jurisdiction did not hold factual enquiry but relied on the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on PLD 1964 West Pakistan (Rev.) 7 stated that limitation is not an impediment and that in the Jatoi case as well the sale deeds were registered. In the present case the general power of attorney allegedly executed in favour of respondent No,2 stands extinguished for all purposes with effect from 7-7- 1977.
5. I have considered the arguments very carefully. Section 164, subsection (1) empowers the Board of Revenue at any time on its own motion to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. The limitation prescribed on an application made to the Board is ninety days. However, in the present case it has been alleged that a serving senior Army Officer obtained power of attorney allegedly through using his official position during the period of Martial Law and then influenced the Revenue Officers to do as he wished with the property of the petitioner. It
3. The facts of the case are that the unfortunate Muhammad Akram patient son of Muhammad Afzal aged 32 years was declared a lunatic vide order dated 18-4-1981, passed by District Judge, Lahore, under section 62 read with section 71 of the Lunacy Act, 1912. A copy of District Judge's order has been placed on the record as Annex. II, from which it appears that Mst. Razia Begum, the real mother of Akram Lunatic was appointed as his guardian.
4. Copy of another order dated 29-7-1991 has also been placed on record as Annex. III, which shows that after the death of Razia Begum, the real mother of lunatic, Respondent Mst. Seema Riaz real sister of the lunatic was appointed in place of Mst. Razia Begum.
5. In para. 7 of the application serious charges of misappropriation of the estate of lunatic have been made against respondent Seema Riaz. It has been asserted that her husband respondent Riaz is in a position to dominate respondent Mst. Seema Riaz to the detriment of the estate of the lunatic landholder. Concrete instances of misappropriation have also been given. It has been stated in the application that initially respondent Riaz arranged for an ex parte decree to be passed against Akram Lunatic whereby he was deprived of nearly 680 Kanals 11 Marlas of land situated in Chak No,134/16-L, Tehsil Mian Channu. This transaction is stated to be reflected in Mutation No,427, dated 20-12-1978 in the relevant record. Another sale transaction recorded as Mutation No,736 on 3-10-1984 involving an additional hundred Kanals of land has also been stated to be fraudulent.
6. The property of Muhammad Akram Lunatic is mainly situated in Chak No,134/16-L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Multan.
It has also been asserted in the application that two acres of land have also been inherited by Muhammad Akram from his father Muhammad Afzal. This land is situated at Mauza Saggian Kalanwar, Tehsil and District Lahore, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner Lahore. So far as the present residence of Muhammad Akram Lunatic is concerned, it has been disclosed in para. 11 of the application that he is currently residing at Lahore in the house of the respondents where he is being subjected to ill-treatment.
7. On these facts, an application has been made directly to the Board of Revenue with the following prayers:--
(i) Respondent Court of Wards be directed to exercise powers conferred on it by the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903, in relation to Akram lunatic;
(ii) The entire property of lunatic landholder Akram be placed under the superintendence of respondent Court of Wards.
(iii) On resumption of the superintendence of the person and property of Akram lunatic, a Notification required by section 9 of the relevant Act may be issued;
8. At the very outset of the hearing, I asked Dr. A. Basit, learned counsel for the applicant as to how such an application could he directly filed in the Board of Revenue. He has submitted that the situation in this case is covered by the proviso to section 4 of the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903.
According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner of the Division within the limits of which any Ward ordinarily resides or his property is situate shall be the Court of Wards in respect of that person and of his property. However, where the Ward ordinarily resides within the jurisdiction of one Commissioner but his property or any part thereof is situated within the jurisdiction of any other Commissioner, it is for the Board of Revenue to determine which Commissioner shall be the Court of Wards in respect of the person and property of such a Ward. I have seen the relevant provision from which it appears to be the correct legal position. I am therefore, satisfied that a direct application can be filed in the Board in a situation where the Ward resides in one jurisdiction but the hulk of his property is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of another Commissioner.
9, Next, I asked the learned counsel as to why the Board of Revenue should issue the directions sought by him when a Guardian for the person and property of Muhammad Akram lunatic had already been appointed by the District Judge, Lahore which is a competent Court under the Lunacy Act, 1912. The learned counsel drew my attention to section 5(2) of the Punjab Court of Wards Act, 1903 read with section 35. Reading the two provisions together, appears that no appointment of a guardian of any Ward who holds land and is, therefore, to be treated as a landholder shall be valid unless and until it has been confirmed by the Court of Wards. It also appears that the jut jurisdiction to make an order directing that the property of such landholder be placed under the superintendence of the Court of Wards is vested in the Board of Revenue rather than the Court of Wards itself. According to the learned counsel, a Court of Ward can only assume jurisdiction if and when a direction is issued to it by the Board of Revenue. The precise question which calls for determination in this case is whether or not the appointment of respondent Seema Riaz is subject to the confirmation of the Court of Wards. I have no doubt that this is so aid I accordingly so hold.
10. Prima facie, the best person to look after the interest of the lunatic in this case appears to be his real sister namely respondent Seema Riaz. I asked the counsel for the applicant to explain as to why the appointment of respondent Seema Riaz be not confirmed as she is the only surviving real sister. Confronted by this question, the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out to me that the respondent Seema Riaz is the next legal heir of Muhammad Akram Lunatic in question. He also pointed out that even otherwise she would be immediately interested in outliving Muhammad Akram Mr. Amjad Aftab Malik, Advocate who was present in the Courtroom and claims to be a relative of the lunatic and his well-wisher had offered to make suitable arrangements for his care and protection. I think this gentleman is involved in some litigation with Seema Riaz. It would be in the interest of lunatic if he is kept away from both these persons. However, he may apply to the Court of Wards for any assistance, he may be in a position to render. This Board is not in a position to assess his offers which were vehemently pressed.
16. Before parting with this case. I think it is pertinent to add that the Court of Wards would also be well-advised to take immediate suitable measures for protecting the life of Muhammad Akram lunatic. It may consider the possibility of placing the lunatic in some good private institution meant for the care of mentally infirm persons. It may not be safe for the lunatic to continue to reside in the house of respondent Seema Riaz and her husband much longer. It is a hard situation where the real mother of the lunatic is dead and her only real sister is being accused of large-scale misappropriation of his assets under the influence of her husband. Other relatives also appear to be more interested in the property of the lunatic rather than his welfare. However, taking into consideration' that the landed estate of the lunatic is quite substantial, arrangements can be made to place him even in the best available institution in Pakistan. With these observations, this application stands disposed of.