' The suit land was mortgaged by Malik Chand in favour of Sardar Chand vide Mutation No, 784 attested on 2-8-1926. Malak Chand sold the land to Sultan Ali on 29-4-1943 subject to this mortgage. This sale was pre-empted by Muhammad Khan and Dewan Chand and the land was mutated in their names vide Mutation No, 2251 sanctioned on 11-2-1945. After independence of the country, the share of Dewan Chand in the suit land and the mortgagee rights of Sardar Chand became evacuee property. The share of Dewan Chand was separated and recorded in favour of Central Government while that of Muhammad Khan was entered in separate Khata recording Muhammad Khan to be the mortgagor and the Central Government to be the mortgagee.
Muhammad Khan sold the land to the petitioners in the year 1966 vide Mutation No, 3578 sanctioned on 15-11-1966. The petitioners came to acquire a total area of 48 Kanals, 7 Marlas.
Somewhere in the year 1970 the petitioners filed an application to the Collector Sub-Division Mandl Bahauddin for redemption of the suit land. While the application was so pending, the land was allotted to the private respondents. The said Collector proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that he has no jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioners filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division. The learned Additional Commissioner after taking note of letters, dated 22-4-1960 and 5-5-1975 issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner found that redemption of only such mortgages can be held to be barred which are found to be barred by time under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1908. He took note of the apparent fact that the application was filed well within the prescribed period of 60 years. Consequently, he set aside the order of the said Collector vide his order dated 31-12-1981 and remanded the case to him with a direction to proceed further with the application and to decide the same. The private respondents filed a revision which was allowed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order, dated 7-12-1983.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order of the learned Member (Revenue) is without jurisdiction. This is a non-speaking order and is contrary to law declared by the superior Courts.
3. The private respondents are absent despite notice.
4. The facts narrated above are borne out from the record. The mortgage was affected by means of mutation attested on 2-8-1926. Article 148 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 prescribes a period of 60 years for redemption. The said period was to expire on 1-8-1986 i,e, long after the impugned order passed by the learned Member and the institution of the present writ petition. The findings of the Collector which found favour with the learned Member while setting aside the order of the Commissioner are against law declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan while adjudicating upon the effect of the very letters referred to in the impugned order of Collector and the learned Member, in the case of Samar Gui v. Central Government and others (PLD 1986 SC 35).
The present case stands on much better footings as it is an admitted position on the record that the application for redemption was filed well within time of 60 years prescribed by law. The impugned order of learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue .s, therefore, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and is accordingly declared to be as such. The writ petition is allowed.
The order, dated 7-12-1983 of learned Member (Revenue), -Board of Revenue, Punjab is declared to be without lawful authority. The result would be that the order, dated 31-12-1981 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division holds the field. The concerned Collector shall proceed with and decide the application for redemption of mortgage filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.