' One Sher Muhammad Baig son of Sikandar Baig was owner of land measuring 578 Kanals, 5 Marlas. On 21-2-1962 he got a report entered with Patwari that he has gifted away his entire land to his son Muhammad Afzal Baig and that he has delivered possession to him. Mutation No,10 was accordingly entered. A note was made on the mutation that the donor has gifted away his entire land in the village to the donee and is left with no land. The mutation was accordingly attested and incorporated into the revenue record. Muhammad Afzal Baig died on 11-1-1971. His death was reported to the Patwari on 5-11-1971 who entered Mutation No,78. The said land was mutated in favour of his widow Mst. Sughran Begum (1/4), Mst. Hayat Bibi, mother (1/3) and Sher Muhammad Baig, father (5/12). The mutation was attested on 11-11-1971.
2. On 13-4-1972 i,e,, almost 10 years after the attestation of Mutation No,10, said Sher Muhammad Baig filed an application for review of Mutation No,10 on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of MLR 64. The learned Collector dismissed the said application on 14-10-1975 holding that no violation of MLR 64 has taken place. The said Sher Muhammad Baig filed a revision petition (under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967). The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan allowed the said revision vide order, dated 19-8-1977 and directed that the mutation be reviewed as according to him an area of 12 Kanals 10 Marlas was left out of the said mutation. Mst. Sughran Begum, the widow of said Muhammad Afzal Baig, the donee filed a revision which was heard by a learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore who allowed the same on 10-9-1983 and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner.
3. Mr. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate argues that the provisions of M.L.R. 64 as well as M.L.R.
115 have an overriding effect and are to be enforced by all the Authorities.
4. I have gone through the record available on the file of this writ petition. I find that in the first instance there is in fact no violation of the MLR 64. As stated above, while reporting Mutation No,10 Sher Muhammad Baig donor stated that he is transferring his entire land in the village. The concerned official, whose duty it was to check up the record for the purpose of entering the mutation also reported that the entire land is being gifted away. If a few Kanals were later found to have been left out it was not an intentional violation on the part of the donor but was an omission by the officer who entered the mutation. Such omissions can never be said to constitute violation of MLR 64. The learned Collector as well as the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue very correctly concluded that no violation of MLR 64 stands proved. On the other hand, it was the duty of the said Authorities to correct the mutation and also enter the remaining few Kanals of land that were not mentioned in the mutation in the first instance.
5. I find the above noted arguments of the learned counsel also to be without force. The matter as to who can take cognizance of violation of MLR 64 came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and .10 others (1994 SCMR 1035). The following observations of this Court while deciding RSA No,16 of 1981 and Cross Objection No,6114-C of 1981 were upheld:-- "the power to declare any transaction as offending the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 vested in the Land Commission or the Land Commissioner appointed thereunder and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as the other Tribunals/Authorities was expressly excluded".
' It was further observed by the Supreme Court:- "There being no mistake apparent on the face of record, the Revenue Officers in the exercise of their review could not set aside the earlier order of attestation of mutation thereby annulling the solemn transaction of sale entered into between the vendor and the vendees in respect of the valuable landed property, moreso, on the grounds regarding which the jurisdiction expressly vested in the Land Commission or their subordinate officers and not in any other forum including the Civil Court.
Since the hierarchy of Revenue Officers act in different capacities under different laws, it appears that the Revenue Officer also being vested with the powers of Land Commissioner reviewed the mutation on grounds available under Martial Law Regulations, and the whole exercise was conducted under the mistaken. Belief. There is no denying the fact, that when an officer acts under different statute he has to strictly follow the procedure embodied therein and cannot exercise his powers availing the provision of other statute. Apparently, the Revenue Officer while exercising his powers of review under the Land Revenue Act could not simultaneously act under Martial Law Regulation concerned."
6. For all that has been stated above, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs.