' Order, dated 8-11-2002 of the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Bannu has been assailed by the present petitioners before this Court in revision petition, vide the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Bannu had dismissed their revision against the order, dated 12-8-1999 of District Collector, Karak.
2. Facts of the case leading up to this revision petition can be summarized as under:--
3. A Mutation No,1269 was attested in Mauza Kandha, Tehsil and District Karak vide which the shares of the present petitioners were transferred in the name of one Muhammad Maqsood etc. Out of Shamilat land bearing Khasra Nos.432, 426 and 2753. The present respondents moved the Revenue Authorities for the cancellation of that mutation. The matter was enquired into by the Revenue staff and consequently, it was cancelled by the District Collector, Karak. The said cancellation order was challenged before Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Bannu in revision who vide his order, dated 8-11-2002 rejected it. Hence the present revision petition before this Court.
4. Arguments of both the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents heard at length.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners had called in question the 'findings of the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court, Bannu on the grounds that (a) the District Collector Revenue was not competent to cancel or review the mutation under reference without first obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner or the officer to whom he is subordinate, (b) that under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 review application can be made within 90 days of the passing of the order whereas no such review application was ever made to the Revenue Officer who attested the said mutation and that (c) the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 being owners in Shamilat could transfer their share.
6. In order to sift the grain from the chaff, I had to dig deep into the matter and in the process I scrutinized the relevant Revenue Record i.e, Shajra Nasab, record of rights and Wajib-ul-Arz of the said village i.e, Village Kandha. I am afraid the facts of the case fly in the face of the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this revision petition. Nowhere in the Shajra Nasab of Mauza Kandha compiled in 1974-75 does one come across the names of Allah Noor etc. Petitioners as co-sharers and owners of Shamilat-e-Deh. Interestingly the Wajib-ulArz of the year 1974-75 of the said village says that Shamilat can only and exclusively be utilized by the owners and co- sharers. It explicitly mentions that owners in possession {{URDU TEXT}} have nothing to do with Shamilat Deh. Now it is in the evidence that the petitioners had purchased 1 Kanal, 18 Marlas of land vide Mutation No,522, dated 22-7-1984. And 19 Marlas vide Mutation No,524, dated 22-7-1984 from one Mst. Khol Bibi and Toota Baz respectively with shares in Shamilat. But neither Khata of Shamilat nor numbers of shares were recorded in Columns Nos.2 and 11 of these mutations by the concerned Revenue Officers. These are the sale transactions on which the petitioners base their claims as co- sharers and seek justification for their transfer vide the impugned mutations. It is worth pointing out that the total area of Shamilat in Mauza Kandha is 9871 Kanals and 6 Marlas without any determination of shares of the respective co-sharers. In the light of Revenue Record, the ownership of 2 Kanals and 17 Marlas (which the petitioners have purchased) cannot bestow any right on them to transfer 60 Kanals land in Shamilat. Again, there is no gainsaying the fact that any transaction which fails to specify the shares of Shamilat, so transferred, makes the deed ab initio invalid as per para. 7.19(2) and (3) of the Land Record Manual. There is no denying the fact that by purchase of 2 Kanals and 17 Marlas, the petitioners have only attained the status of {{URDU TEXT}} and they therefore, cannot claim their share in Shamilat as per Wajib-ul-Arz of the said village. Even otherwise, when schedule of Shamilat is not announced no share-holder is authorized to sell his share as his shares are not properly defined. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit, whatsoever, in the revision petition which is IA hereby dismissed.