' This is a revision against the order dated 10th May 1975, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Karachi, rejecting the revision of the petitioner.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner who is real brother of the respondent, purchased a plot bearing No, AM/212, Karachi, from Settlement Department and entered into an agreement of sale for half share of the said plot with the respondent under written agreement dated 11th January 1962.
On 28th April 1966, he also executed a registered sale deed for the above-quoted agreed half share in favour of the respondent. The deed was registered before the Joint Registrar, Lahore.
3. In the lower Courts the main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel was that the sale deed executed before the Registrar did not bear the signature of the petitioner and, therefore, it was a fraud committed by the respondent on him. The second contention was that he has all along been in undisputed and exclusive possession of the entire plot and, therefore, the Revenue Courts were not justified in ordering entry in the Record of Rights in pursuance of the registered deed as the deed was fraudulent and the possession was with the petitioner. The lower Courts held that the Revenue Courts were not supposed to probe into the fraud or to challenge the execution of registered sale deed. This was jurisdiction of the civil Court where the petitioner could agitate these points.
4. While arguing the case in this Court, Mr. Inamullah, the Advocate for the respondent, raised preliminary point of law that since the lower Courts have taken concurrent decisions both on the point of fact and law, it was not for this Court to interfere with the decision on the same facts on law. Mr. Kazi, the Advocate for the petitioner conceded that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to probe into frauds alleged to have been committed during the course of execution of sale deed. It was for the civil Court to decide such issues. He raised a very important point of law that section 3 of Land Revenue Act excludes certain lands from the operation of Land Revenue Act. It reads as under :- "3.-(1) Except so far as may be necessary for the record, recovery and administration of village cess, or for purpose of survey, nothing in this Act applies to land which is occupied as the site of a town or a village and is not assessed to Land Revenue."
' According to him the plain reading of the section shows that the Land Revenue Act is not applicable to cities or towns and therefore the City Survey Officers were not competent to maintain Record of Rights in respect of plots in cities, much less order mutation in the record. While continuing his arguments, he stressed that section 42 of the Land Revenue Act which lays down procedure for maintenance of record, also excludes the maintenance of City Survey record.
Therefore, even this section would not be applicable to these proceedings. In this respect he invited attention of this Court to definition of 'estate' under section 4(9) of the Land Revenue Act which reads as under :- "4(9). Estate means any area-
(I) for which a separate record-of-rights has been made or
(II) ............... II ' According to him the 'estate' means a deh for which separate record is maintained in a register.
Therefore, this definition will also not apply to plots in cities or towns. Maintenance of record of rights in cities and towns is the exclusive function of local bodies like K.M.C., KDA, Municipalities etc.
5. So far this point of law that Land Revenue Act excludes the maintenance of record of rights in respect of cities, it is the first time that this point has been raised in this Court. This was not raised by the Advocate in the lower Courts nor is mentioned in the memo of Revision. However, being a very important point of law, I prefer to discuss this point and give decision. Section 3(1) of the Land Revenue Act on which the learned Advocate has retied, itself says that "except so far as may be necessary for the record, recovery and administration of village cess, or for purpose of survey . . . . " subsection (2) of section 3 reads as under:- "It shall be lawful for the Collector, acting under the general orders of the Board of Revenue for the purpose of this Act what lands are included within the site of a town or village and to fix and from time to time to vary the limits of the same, regard being had to all the subsisting rights of the land owners."
' Section 116 of Land Revenue Act lays down that:- "It shall be lawful for the Board of Revenue, whenever it may deem expedient to direct by notification the survey of any land in any part of the Province with a view to the settlement of the Land Revenue, the preparation of Record of Rights and preservation thereof or for any other similar purpose and such survey shall be called a revenue survey."
' All the sections when read together clearly show that maintenance o Record-of-Rights in cities and towns is also the function of the Board of Revenue for which it issues directives from time to time under various provisions of Land Ravenna Act. For this purpose the Director Survey, Settlement & Land Records, Is working in the Province with City Surveyors under him for various cities and towns.
6, As regards the city survey record that was being maintained in the Province under Land Revenue Code, this has been protected under section 184(3) of Land Revenue Act relating to repeals and savings. The legal position being such, I am convinced that the lower Courts have rightly effected mutation in the Record of ' Rights on the authority of registered deed. I, therefore, reject the revision petition.