' Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner's husband Sultan Khan was allotted State land measuring 94 Kanals 7 Marlas under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme in Chak No,10/3-Thal, Tehsil and District Jhang. He died on 27-9-1977 and mutation of Inheritance No,1039 was sanctioned on 12-11-1977 in Mauza Moghal, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. After his death respondent No,1 through fraudulent means prepared a forged General Power of Attorney on behalf of Sultan Khan on 19-12-1979 and on the basis thereof got proprietary rights on 1-10-1980 and conveyance deed executed on 3-1-1980. Through registered sale-deed on 30-1-1981 he transferred the land in dispute to respondents Nos.2 and 3 whereupon Mutation No,313 was sanctioned on 27- 12-1981. When the petitioner went to Jhang for transfer of the land in favour of the heirs of the deceased and for the execution of conveyance deed she came to know of the fraud played by the respondents. She filed a review petition before the District Collector, but the same was dismissed.
Hence this revision petition under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with sections 7 and 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 against the order dated 11-8-1991 passed by Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Jhang.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner after recounting the facts of the case as given in the foregoing paragraph contended that the petition is before Board of Revenue under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 for cancellation of conveyance deed, dated 3-1-1980 in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 regarding Sultan Khan's property situated in Chak No,10/3 Thal, Tehsil and District Jhang. In a similar case suo motu cognizance was taken by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue in R.O.R. No,1695 of 1989 titled State v. Said deceased and others. The conveyance deed was cancelled under section 30(2) ibid. The petitioner has moved this Court not on the question of inheritance but for cancellation of the conveyance deed obtained fraudulently by the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that Sultan deceased had executed an irrevocable power of attorney on 2-9-1971 in favour of respondent No,1 regarding the suit land. Simultaneously the deceased had executed an agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the said respondent. If both the documents are read together it becomes clear that the deceased had sold the land in favour of respondent No,1 and had no interest left therewith. Further the petitioner had suppressed the factum of agreement to sell in favour of respondent No,1 in her petition. The petitioner had also never informed the Collector of the death of Sultan deceased and therefore all the transactions in the case were valid as held by the Collector. No fraud had been committed by the respondents and the petitioner can seek remedy in the Civil Court. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 1979 Kar. 22 in support of his arguments.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the record produced by the Patwari. An examination of the Khasra Girdawari and other relevant record shows that respondent Muhammad Ramzan has remained in possession of the suit land' throughout. From the perusal of the general power of attorney and agreement to sell both dated 2-9-1971, the only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that the deceased had alienated his rights in the land to respondent No,1 having received consideration and authorised him to dispose it of in any manner.
Further that the record of the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang shows that no report regarding death of Sultan was ever made to that office. The case R.O.R. No,1695 of 1989, decided on 17-9-1992 by Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue is significantly and materially different from the present case in so far as the possession of the land in that case was given to the general attorney after the death of the allottee. The conveyance deed was issued by the Collector on 2-3-1983 whereas the particulars of the legal heirs of the deceased allottee had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang by the C.D.A. vide their letter dated 13-1-1982. Further that no agreement to sell ({{URDU TEXT}}) had been executed between the deceased allottee and the person holding the general power of attorney. On the other hand, the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 are clearly attracted in the instant case.
5. It has been held in PLD 1979 Kar. 22 that the party having come into possession of the land for value paid and acknowledged in the agreement and he having right to usufruct till the land was finally transferred in his name, and his interest in the land which formed the subject-matter of the document, the power of attorney could not be revoked.
6. Under these circumstances the Collector has correctly advised recourse to the Civil Court. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or infirmity and no interference therein is warranted. The revision is devoid of force and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Consequently the petitioner's prayer for intervention under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act is also rejected.