1. ' Learned counsel for both the parties are present and their arguments have been heard. The subject-matter of the Revision petition before this Court is that Mutation No, 1153 has illegally been attested on 5-4-1976 by the Revenue Officer concerned.
2. ' The facts of the case are that on 19-2-19:6 Musali Khan Vendor, appeared before the Revenue Officer in Village Pabbi and gave a statement about the sale of the suit land situated In Garhi Momin which is a separate estate. In favour of his sons, Sher Afzal and Mohammad Afzal. At the time of recording his statement on 19.2-1976, Musali Khan son of Ali Akbar was identified by Khan Said Lambardar and Fazio Raziq son of Abdur Raziq resident of village. It is not clear whether Fazle Raziq witness is a respectable person of the village where the property is located or where the statement of the vendor was recorded on 19-2-1976. The same was the position in respect of Khan Said Lambardar.
3. ' Further details of the case are that after the statement of Musali Khan was recorded on 19-2-1976, he, in the meanwhile, died and subsequently the mutation in question was attested in village Akbar Pura on 5-4.1974.
4. ' The Collector had accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Revenue Officer for observing the necessary formalities of law, but vide his order dated 15.12-1976, the learned Additional Commissioner had accepted further appeal of Sher Afzal and Muhammad Mrsl and held that the mutation was correctly attested as all the legal provisions of law were observed.
5. The law on the point is quite clear. According to section 42, sub-sections (7) and (8), of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, except in the case of inheritance, a Registered Deed or a Court decree, the Revenue Officer while attesting the mutation must comply with the following mandatory provisions of law :-
(i) The order of attestation should be passed in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired I
(ii) Such a person must be identified by two respectable persons, preferably the Lambardar of the concerned village or Member of the concerned Union Council etc. ;
(iii) The signature or thumb-impression of those witnesses who identified the person whose rights have been acquired must be obtained by the Revenue Officer on the Register of Mutation.
(iv) This attestation of mutation must be done in the common assembly and in the estate concerned and not anywhere else. ; The order dated 5-4-1976 of the Revenue Officer attesting this mutation shows that he has done It in the village Akbar Pura. The property Is located, in village Garhi Momin which is a separate estate.
6. The statement f the vendor was recorded on 19-2-1976 in village Pabbi which also is a separate estate. Therefore, the mandatory provisions of subsection (8) of section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was not complied with. Similarly, the final order should have been passed in the presence of the person whose right had been acquired. But since he died, and the other formalities have also not been completed as required by law, this mutation should not have been attested by the Revenue Officer concerned. These mandatory provisions of law in section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 have been made with a view to put an end to the transactions which are made clandestinal or fraudulently, and with an assurance tha the actual owner is really the same person represented at the mutation proceedings. Moreover, there is no provision under the law that the compliance of this mandatory provision can be made in any other manner. In other words, the Revenue Officer has no discretion to partly observe or dispense with any of these formalities of law. As such any violation of these legal formalities would have made a mutation as invalid, as has been done in the case of present Mutation No, 1153. It is, therefore, held that Mutation No, 1153 of 5-4-1976 has wrongly been attested and therefore the order of the Revenue Officer passed in this case is set aside. The order of the Collector dated 26-6-1976 Is upheld. Similarly, the order of the learned Additional Commissioner stands quashed.
7. ' The Revenue Officer concerned who has attested this mutation should be proceeded against departmentally for not following the law on the point and the learned Collector vide his judgment dated 26.6-1976 was quite justified in commenting that :- "It is not understandable as to what consideration has prompted the Revenue Officer Circle to totally ignore this mandatory provision of law and attest the mutation."
8. ' These remarks of the learned Collector contain a correct assessment of the Revenue Officer's demeanour who seems to have drawn the parties into needless litigation and, therefore, he must be called upon to explain the position and then start deciplinary action against him. The Commissioner concerned should take disciplinary action against him and send a report to this Court in due course of time.