TARIQ MAHMUD, SENIOR MEMBER.- This single order disposes of the above captioned revision petitions assailing the order passed by Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala dated 5.9.2000 whereby he declined to interfere with the order of District Collector, Hafizabad wherein he had granted permission to review Mutation Nos. 1572 and 2043, dated 27.4.1950.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the revenue find staff moved Tehsildar Hafizabad in the year 2000 for permission to review mutation Nos. 1572 Zari and 2043 Sakni dated 27.4.1950 regarding land bearing Khasra No. 283 measuring 13 Mafias, 4 Sarsais and Khasra No. 841 measuring 10 Marlas, 6 Sarsais. The main plea taken by the revenue find staff was that the land in question belonged to the Municipal Committee and the resolution of the District Board reportedly, passed in the year 1924 through which the mutations in question were sanctioned in 1950 did not exist on record. The District Board nor had the authority to pass such resolution, It was further contended that there was no proof of the deposit of sale proceeds of Rs.11 50/- by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners as consideration of the land. On the report of the Tehsildar and the General Assistant, the District Collector, Hafizabad summoned the Patwari and after examining the record, allowed the review of Mutations Nos. 1572 and 2043 vide order passed on 28.6.2000. Aggrieved with the order, the petitioners lodged Revision Petitions Nos. 138-1 of 2000 and 139-1 of 2000 before the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division. The contention by the petitioners in the revision was that their predecessor-in-interest purchased the land in question on 2.3.1924 on the basis of a resolution No, 17 of the District Board and in pursuance of the sale on 27.4.1950 Mutation Nos. 1572 and 2043 were sanctioned accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that findings of the lower Court that the mutations were sanctioned without prior permission of the Collector were not maintainable as prior permission of the Collector was not required since it was not a Nazul property. Mutations in question were sanctioned under Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The land measuring 13 Marlas, 4 Sarsais bearing Khasra No. 283/2 resultantly was transferred in favour of Atta Ullah Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. According to the report of the find staff, the land was .Part of a thoroughfare and entry to that effect existed till 1942-43 and as held by the learned Commissioner, the District Board was not competent to transfer proprietary rights of the said land. The learned Commissioner further held that the permission to review the Mutation Nos. 2043, dated 1572 was rightly allowed.
3. As regards status of Khasra No. 841 measuring 10 Kanals, 15 Marlas, the Court held that land measuring 10 Marlas, 6 Sarsais ever since 1944-50 continued to remain in the possession of the petitioners. The transaction, which was made basis of the impugned mutations, was held to be doubtful and non-existent and the permission to review was upheld by the learned Commissioner.
4. I have give careful consideration to the averments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the file and record produced by the find staff. The main plea taken by the District Collector was that neither the resolution in question which gave rise to the transaction existed on record nor the District Board had the power to pass the resolution. Based on this premise, the Collector allowed permission to review the two mutations and scored them of from the record. His orders* were further affirmed by the learned Commissioner. Aggrieved with the concurrent orders, the petitioners have moved the Board of Revenue through these revisions.
5. This case raises some key questions about the permission to review by the Collector "at any time". The point to determine is whether this power is exercisable at any time or there is some caveat to that effect.
6. Provision for review is stipulated under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act which reads as under:- "163. Review (1) A Commissioner, Collector or an Assistant Collector may, at any time, on his own motion, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors-in-office, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or conform the same.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by an order passed by a Commissioner, Collector or an Assistant Collector, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was 'passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for, any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the order passed against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Commissioner, Collector or Assistant Collector, as the case may be, and such officer may modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors-in-office.
Provided that-
(a) an order passed by his predecessor-in-office shall not be reviewed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) by the:-
(i) Commissioner, without first obtaining the sanction . Of the Board of Revenue.
(ii) Collector, without first obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner, and no order shall be reviewed by any other Revenue Officer, without first obtaining the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject.
(b) An application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period.
(c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice, has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order;
(d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the Collector shall be deemed to be successor-in-officer of any Revenue Officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer, and to whom there is no successor-in-office.
(3) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order.
7. The above-quoted Section provides two planks for invoking review proceedings. First, it is the Revenue Officer who may invoke it on his own. Motion and secondly a person who is aggrieved by such order who may invoke this power. I will discuss the latter case first. Only 90 days have been provided to an aggrieved person to invoke this remedy. This has palpably been done to put the proceedings to rest at certain point in time and to give adequate time and afford" an opportunity to a person aggrieved by an order who even after due diligence could not ascertain some material fact impinging on his right/claim. On the other hand, the Collector has been provided far greater space in this regard. He can invoke review proceedings "at any time". There is no limitation on this score. This has been laid in the scheme ostensibly for the reason that Collector is mandated to ensure that the revenue record is correctly maintained. Any aberration is to be addressed forthwith and remedial measures are to be put in place.
8. According to para 7.54 of the Land Records Manual, record of rights are prepared under Section 40 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, during the Settlement Operation or, any other- time in pursuance of the orders of the Board of Revenue. Under Section 41 of the Land Revenue, Act, whereas preparation of periodical record (Misal-e-Miadi) on quadrennial basis is done. Record of rights of owners, tenants and mortgagees is updated through the procedure of mutations. Four years period provides adequate time to scrutinize the record which is in the process of preparation. After four years, Misal-e-Miadi is confirmed. This document attracts presumption of truth. As held by the superior Courts, once this Misal-e-Haqiat is prepared, the job of the Revenue Officer is over and it is for the Civil Court, a Court of competent jurisdiction to sift chaff from the wheat. Every fact adduced to is scrutinized on the basis of detailed enquiry, evidence and cross-examination. Presumption of truth attached to a fact henceforth can only be repelled through a detailed enquiry. The suo motu power to review at any time thus is not unbridgeable, It has to be seen in the light of scheme of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. There has to be very strong reasons to interfere with an entry on this count- after a lapse of four years or with the confirmation of Jamabandi (Misal-e-Miadi). A patent fact may not be as patent after a lapse of time, It can more often invite intricacies and many over layers with the passage of time, It is a settled law that no disputed entry in the Jamabandi should be Altered either on the ground of mistake or fraud except on the basis of obvious clerical error or patent fact. A patent fact is the one which is visibly registered at first glance. Any matter requiring an enquiry or detailed evidence cannot be approximated with a patent fact.
9. In the present case, the impugned mutations were attested In 1950s and had subsisted in the revenue record for 50 years meaning thereby that these were carried through at least 12 quadrennial Jamabandis. This had given the impugned mutations a character of long standing entry. These were based on a transaction which took place in 1924. The main argument to set side this long standing entry was that there was no record with regard to the reported sale proceeds and the District Board was not competent to make such a transaction, more so when the land in question at certain point of time was a road track. The question arises whether there was any transaction between the parties, and if so whether the District Board was competent to enter into this transaction. These were the facts which required a detailed enquiry and evidence. These facts could not be looked into through a summary procedure and any such issue which was not amenable to summary proceedings should have been out of scope of the Revenue Officer. I will further like to reiterate the entries which are of long standing character coupled with constructive and physical possession of a party are certainly not addressable through review proceedings at any time. Variables impinging on any entry giving it a long standing character are to be weighed equally while determining the "timing" for the suo motu review of mutations. The Collector if at all he has to exercise this power at any time must satisfy that the entries are not Of long standing nature, do not deny the factum of continuous possession and do not need detailed evidence and cross-examination.
10. In view of these observations I am of the considered view that the Collector did not exercise review powers keeping in view the facts already discussed. His order, therefore, suffers from inherent inadequacies and cannot be termed free from flaws. The Commissioner whereas has taken pains, to dilate on the history of the case but in the ultimate he has merely affirmed the orders of the Collector. An order passed at the back of the petitioners could not be countenanced by the revisional authority more so when it sought to alter an entry existing for 50 years. The Collector seemed quite sanguine to hold that the petitioners did not turn up despite notice. But there is nothing to suggest that he made any attempt to secure the attendance and resort to substituted service. The impugned orders are set aside and the two revision petitions are accepted.