ORDER IMTIAZ MASRUR, MEMBER.- A Review Petition had been filed against the order 4.11.1989, of Mr. Zaheer Sajjad, the Member (Judical-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab. Mr Murtaza Beg Birlas, the then Member (Judical-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab re-called the order dated 4.11.1989 vide his orders dated 6.6.1993. Hence this case will be treated as a revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner(Revenue) dated 14.7.1988.
2. The facts are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the sanction of mutation No. 10046, sanctioned on 23.8.1987, filed an appeal before the A. C/Collector, who dismissed it vide his order dated 28.1.1988. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, which was also dismissed on 14.7.1988. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was remanded to the AC/Collector, Isakhel for disposal, vide order dated 4.11.1989, The review petition was accepted by the then Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 6.6.1993 stating that case will be decided afresh.
3. I have, heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner's area was included in the joint Khata of the respondents. Petitioner's consent is not included in the mutation. He stated that since the learned Member, Board of / Revenue, Mr. Murtaza Beg Birlas had recalled the order of learned Member | (Judical-I), Mr. Zaheer Sajjad dated 4.11.1989, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)'s, orders are now to .Be treated as impugned orders, j The learned counsel stated that the lower courts have deeded on technical j grounds without going into merits of the case. He prayed that the case might be I remanded to the Collector for decision on merit.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other had, stated | that both the petitioner and the respondents are real brothers. He further stated I that four mutations had been attested on the same day i.e. 23.7.1987 and thumb I impressions had been affixed on fard Patwar. The petitioner obtained copies on 19.9.1987 but filed appeal on 26.11.1987 after 3 months 5 days. It is incorrect that the petitioner had no knowledge about the transaction because he obtained the copies on 19.9.1987. He stated that out of 4 mutations only one mutation was being challenged, which that he admitted the other three mutations.
6. In his right of reply the petitioner stated that the three mutations were about the exchange of land while the fourth mutation No.10046 did not pertain to exchange and was disputed. He stated that the copies of mutation had been , obtained on 19.9.1987 which pertained to the exchange and not about 10046.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced on both sides and perused the record and the impugned orders.
8. As per record the presence of the parties is not disputed. All the four mutations had been deeded on the same date. The appeal before the ; Commissioner was time barred by 3 months 5 days. If the petitioner feels that his area had been fraudulently induced in the land of the respondents, his real \ brothers, he is at liberty to go to the Civil Courts. It has been rightly held in the impugned orders that the Collector had deeded the mutations keeping in view the I law and rules on the subject.
9. In view of the above the revision petition is dismissed and the impugned orders of Additional Commissioner(Revenue), Sargodha Division, are upheld.