' Brief facts of the case as borne out from the record and arguments of the parties are that Mst.
Nisar Bano's claim against her property left in India was equivalent to 3,000 P.I.Us. On the basis of registered agreement to sell, Muhammad Aslam Kisana, possessing registered general power of attorney from her, after confirmation of the proposal for allotment of land in lieu of her claim, alienated her allotted land to Muhammad Ramzan, the vendee of P.I.Us., as mentioned in the agreement. Mutation No,92 was sanctioned to this effect. Later, her entitlement in terms of land against her approved P.I.Us. Was enhanced. The Additional land so allotted was also mutated through Muhammad Aslam Kisana, holder of general power of attorney, in favour of Muhammad Ramzan vide Mutation No,98.
2. Mst. Nisar Bano, after more than 15 years of Mutation Orders Nos.92 and 98, submitted an application to the District Collector for review of these mutations. She alleged that the agreement to sell and general power of attorney on the basis of which the aforesaid mutations had been sanctioned were fake documents and as such the fraud perpetrated on her and the Revenue functionaries needed to be undone. By a detailed order, District Collector rejected her request. The reasoning on which he based his decision to reject the application were:--
(i) Mutation No,92 was sanctioned on 6th of April, 1964 whereas this petition for review has been made on 19th of May, 1981. No reason has been given to explain this inordinate delay.
(ii) The petitioner's declaratory suit before the Civil Judge, Sheikhupura against Mutations Nos.92 ,and 98 was dismissed in default on 7th of December, 1982;
(iii) Some land out of the disputed area was gifted by her in favour of Mst. Iqbal Begum through Mutation No,387, dated 30th of September, 1981. This was challenged and the order of mutation was cancelled by A.C./Collector. The order of A.C./Collector was upheld up to the Board of Revenue. It was observed in the order of the Additional Commissioner relating to the said litigation that the transfer in favour of Muhammad Ramzan by way of Mutation No,92 was absolutely valid. This view was upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
3. Mst. Nisar Bano then filed an appeal against this order of D.C./District Collector before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division which was dismissed on 30th of November, 1988. The present revision petition has .Been directed against this order. The Additional Commissionei has extensively dealt with all the points rased before him which are recorded at para. 4 of the impugned order.
4. Mr. Muhammad Mohsin; Advocate, counsel for legal heirs of respondent No,1 is present. Ex pane proceedings were ordered against remaining respondents. The counsel for the petitioner is present and heard. Both the counsel have also submitted written arguments.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that review of Mutations Nos.92 and 98, dated 6th of April, 1964 and 30th of August, 1964 respectively were sought from the District Collector on the ground of fraud committed by Muhammad Ramzan, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,1 and respondent No,5. It was stated that on the direction of District Collector enquiries were conducted by the subordinate Revenue functionaries who affirmed certitude of the claim of the petitioner that fraud had been committed not only on the petitioner but also on the Revenue functionaries from whom the respondents succeeded in getting the sanction of mutations on the basis of forged and fictitious documents. It was contended that jurisdiction to undo the orders obtained by fraud vested with the authority which passed the order. It was therefore duty of the Revenue Officer to have sought permission. For review of Mutations Nos.92 and 98. On the score of limitation, it was argued that application for review of mutations was filed within from the date of knowledge. Plea was at taken that fraud vitiates the most solemn' proceedings. It was argued that assertion of the lower Appellate Court that question of fraud could not be investigated upon by review functionaries in a summary manner was misconceived. It was further argued that it was wrong for the lower Appellate Court to have drawn adverse presumptions from the dismissal in default of the suit filed by the petitioner. Likewise, it was argued that the reversal of Mutation No,387 relating to the gift by the petitioner to Mst. Iqbal Begum has no relevance to the issues involved in this case. It was submitted that the agreement to sell was a forged document viewed in the perspective that it was relating to a nonexistent property since at the time of alleged execution of the agreement neither P.I.Us. Nor land in lieu thereof existed. Notwithstanding the validity of the agreement to sell or of the general power of attorney, it was averred that these documents related to 3000 P.I.Us. And the additional land allotted to her and later alienated in favour of Muhammad Ramzan vide Mutation No,98 was a travesty of facts and contents of an un admitted agreement. In this view of the matter, it was argued that the orders of the lower Courts be set aside and Mutations Nos.92 and 98 be allowed to be reviewed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Mst. Nisar Bano had entered into an agreement to sell the land which she was likely to receive in lieu of her 3000 P.I.Us. To Muhammad Ramzan. The said agreement was duly executed before the Sub-Registrar, Ferozewala in 1964.
Mirza Hakim Ali, real brother of Mst. Nisar Bane attested the agreement as a witness. He also identified Mst. Nisar Bano before the Sub. Registrar. Mirza Hakim Ali also attested as " witness the power of attorney and identified her before the Sub-Registrar. The two documents, therefore, it was contended, could not be termed as fake. It was stated that initially the land measuring 660 Kanals, 9 Marlas was allotted against 3000 P.I.Us., but afterward due to enhancement of equivalence of Units in terms of land, the additional area of 167 Kanals, 15 Marlas was allotted against the same 3000 P.I.Us. This enhancement of equivalence of units was done in view of the affliction of land in Sheikhupura with salinity' and waterlogging. It was stated that Mst. Nisar Bano had received a total claim of 15,840 P.I.Us. Which she kept on selling and sold more than 20770 Units in 11 villages. Since she had indulged in a selling spree of her land, her plea that she had no knowledge of the transfer of her land to Muhammad Ramzan against 3000 P.I.Us. Was totally unacceptable as held by the District Collector. In fact notices were issued to her to explain how she had sold units in excess of her approved claim. Regarding enquiries conducted by Revenue functionaries which went in favour of the petitioner, it was averred that it was so because of non-association of the respondents with the proceedings. He also referred to dismissal of her suit in the Civil Court and findings of the Revenue Authorities in respect of Mutation No,387 which clearly go to prove that her claim of fraud having been perpetrated on her was false.
7. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties. I have also examined the record. The two orders impugned in this revision petition deal extensively with all the points which were raised before those for a. Their respective findings are cogent and based on correct appreciation of facts. The application for review of mutations submitted to D.C./District Collector by the petitioner could have been dismissed on the score of limitation alone. No cogent explanation for delay, was adduced by the petitioner. The reasoning that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings could be applicable only when fraud .Was proved to have been committed. Mere assertion of fraud is not enough to bring into service this dictum to support the contention of the petitioner.
8. In the litigation regarding Mutation No,387 which was challenged before subordinate Revenue Courts and ultimately at the level of Board of Revenue, it was held that Mutations N,os.92 and 98 were validly sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Ramzan. There is also no cavil to the preposition that additional land was allotted against the same 3000 P.I.Us. Which had been sold to Muhammad Ramzan by Mst. Nisar Bano on the basis of the agreement to sell through her attorney.
The Revenue functionaries cannot refuse to initiate proceedings on the basis of an agreement to sell or, transactions to be completed on the basis of general power of attorney when ostensibly there is no trace of fakeness in such documents and alienation does not offend the entries of Revenue record. The registered agreement to sell and registered power of attorney were the instruments on the basis of which the transactions leading to Mutations Nos.92 and 98 were completed. The allegations that these documents were forged and fake could not be investigated upon by review functionaries in a summary manner. The plea of the respondent that Mirza Hakim Ali, real brother of Mst. Nisar Bano, was a witness of registration of those documents, has not been refuted by the petitioner. If fraud is alleged, it was for the petitioner to have had recourse to the Civil Court since the assertion involved complicated questions of facts.
9. The above discussion will clearly reveal that no fraud was perpetrated upon Revenue functionaries obliging them to intervene to rectify the wrong done. In this view of the matter, the lower Courts rightly dismissed the application and appeal of the petitioner. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.