' Assumption of jurisdiction by respondents Nos.1 to 3 on an application, filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7, has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution which arises in the following circumstances:-
2. A suit for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner and respondent No,8, who are brothers inter se against respondents Nos.4 to 7 on certain grounds mentioned in the plaint. An application was filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the plea that mutation of sale had been sanctioned on 28-1-1998, against which, the suit filed on 22-6-1998 was time-barred and the plaint should be rejected. This application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff, that the suit was within limitation as the relevant mutation was sanctioned on 28-2-1998. On hearing the parties concerned, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 vide order, dated 15-10-1998, against which order, I am informed, that an appeal has been filed which is pending before the learned appellate Court. While the matter. Was still pending respondents Nos.4 to 7 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat to hold an inquiry as to the correct date of attestation of mutation which application was marked by him to Assistant Commissioner Kharian and Tehsildar on 13-10-1998 for immediate appropriate action. The Assistant Commissioner, Kharian also ordered the Tehsildar to hold an inquiry and report vide his order, dated 16-10-1998.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter, at present, is pending in the Civil Court and on the same subject matter inquiry by respondents Nos.1 to 3 is likely to prejudice the case of the parties. It is further contended that none of the respondents had jurisdiction in the matter after the mutation had been sanctioned and the application filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 is merely an attempt to pressurize the preemptors/petitioneRs, He has referred to Sher Zaman v. Mst. Nawab Khatoon and 7 others 1998 SCM R 133 and Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad and 2 others 1980 CLC 520 in support of his submissions.
4. The learned counsel for the private respondents contends that correction of entries in the Revenue Record falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in terms of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, only respondents Nos.1 to 3 can hold an inquiry in the matter. It is contended that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners/pre-emptors if inquiry is held by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter. He relies upon Sher Afghan v. Sheikh Anjum Iqbal 1997 M LD 98 to contend that writ could not be issued in the matter.
5. The controversy that was raised by respondents Nos.4 to 7 in the nature of an application before the learned trial Court, seized of the suit for pre-emption, was that the mutation was sanctioned on 28-1-1998, whereas the petitioners/pre-emptors relied upon a note made by Tehsildar that it was attested on 28-2-1998. The learned trial Court while disposing of the said application has observed that it is a matter of evidence which can be decided on recording evidence as to whether the suit was barred by time or not. An appeal filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 is pending with the learned appellate Court which, of course, will be decided in accordance with law. Parallel proceedings which may have relevance and implications upon the subject-matter of the suit cannot be countenanced. In the case of Sher Zaman (supra) wherein approving the view taken by this Court in Safdar Ali Iqbal's case (supra) it was observed that the proceedings in a pre-emption suit were of judicial nature, whereas, the correction of Khasra Girdawari was an administrative act mint only for fiscal purposes and such proceedings by the Revenue Authorities will amount to interference with the course of justice. It is a salutary principle laid down by their lordships to keep the judicial proceedings uninfluenced through any other method. Now when the suit is pending with the learned civil Court the question as to whether the suit filed by the petitioners/pre-emptors is barred by time or not will certainly be decided on the basis of material produced before respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter on a miscellaneous application by respondents Nos.4 to 7 are not desirable or warranted in view of the circumstances stated above.
6. Where the assumption of jurisdiction by an authority is without lawful authority and is apparent on the face of the proceedings, the same can be quashed in a writ jurisdiction. Reference may be made to Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another PLD 1975 SC 450 where a notice issued by the Labour Court was challenged before the High Court of Sindh and the petition was dismissed as premature, however, on appeal the proceedings initiated and pending with the Labour Court were declared to be without lawful authority and were quashed.
7. In view of the above, the assumption of jurisdiction by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the matter is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. This I C petition is accordingly accepted.
8. It needs to be observed that while deciding the matter, the learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this judgment and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
' No order as to costs. #EndJudgment