' Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that one Mirza Ashfaq Ali Beg son of Sardar Ali Beg owned land measuring 293 Kanals, 2 Marlas in Village Sanats, Tehsil Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura. He sold away this land iv favour of the petitioner and Mutation No,120, was sanctioned on 22-11-1967 accordingly. Later, on 30-11-1967, the said mutation was cancelled by the Revenue Officer. Since the mutation was never incorporated in the Jamabandi prepared subsequently, therefore, the land continuously remained entered in the name of said Ashfaq Ali Beg.. On the basis of the ownership in the Revenue Record, the said Ashfaq Ali Beg gifted away land measuring 195 Kanals, 6 Marlas through Mutation No,21, in favour of his wife. He also exchanged 8 Kanals of land through Mutation No,19 and sold 23 Kanals, 11 Marlas land through Mutation No,20.
This land was further mutated in: favour of respondents through Mutation Nos.39 and 43 in the year 1977. The petitioner did not agitate the matter till 9-10-1985 when she applied to the District Collector for the review of Mutation Nos.19 and 21 attested on 5-1-1973 and 8-2-1975 respectively.
The District Collector, Sheikhupura, after obtaining reports from the field staff vide order dated 6-6- 1986 not only allowed Review Petitions Nos.19, 20, 21, 39 and 43 but also restored Mutation No,120 in favour of the petitioner and further directed to prepare duplicate of Mutation No,120, the original of which was reported lost. This order was assailed in appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division vide order dated 26-10-1988 accepted the appeal and set aside order of Collector dated 6-6-1986. Hence this revision petition.
2. Respondent No,1 was proceeded against ex parte in terms of orders dated 12-6-1993.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the land in dispute was sold to the petitioner through registered sale-deed No,1582, dated 7-2-1965 and the same document still holds the field thus petitioner cannot be deprived of her valuable rights in the land. He further contended that the petitioner has been victimized through fraud. He asserted the impugned order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the ground that the civil suit of the petitioner, which was dismissed was never filed by the petitioner and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has wrongly based his findings taking into consideration this civil suit. On the other the counsel for the respondents has contended that. The civil suit was actually filed and contested by the parties from 1978 to 1981. He further contended that long-standing entries in the Revenue Record could not be altered by the Revenue Authorities by allowing review of mutation.
4. On consideration of the arguments the relevant law I am of the view that it was not open for the Collector to allow correction of long-standing entries in the Revenue Record through review of Mutation. It is an established law that long standing entries in the Revenue Record, should not be altered in summary manner. It is also a well-settled law that mutation proceedings are summary in character and do not provide ample opportunity to the litigants claiming title in the land. It is still disputed that the parties have been in litigation before the Civil Courts and the suit of the petitioner was dismissed. The Revenue Officers in summary proceedings have a limited scope of enquiry and the matter as is involved in the instant case required elaborate enquiry and evidence. Such an elaborate enquiry and evidence could only be adjudicated upon by the Civil Courts as provided by section 53 of the Land Revenue Act. Moreover, in the instant case the possession of land alleged to have been purchased in 1967 has not been obtained by the vendee, prima facie the alienee has yet to affirm the validity of the transaction. It is an established fact that the alleged Mutation No,120, sanctioned in favour of the petitioner is also missing. All such questions require to be thrashed by elaborate enquiry and examination of evidence, which could only be adjudicated upon by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Accordingly order passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 26-10-1988 is upheld and the revision petitiOn is rejected. Revision petition rejected.