' A complaint was filed by respondent No,2, Falak Sher on 1-1-2002 before Army Monitoring Cell and Inspection Team Mandi Baha-ud-Din, praying to initiate criminal proceedings against Sabir Hussain Shah son of Akbar Shah, resident of Kandhanwala, Mehmood Elahi son of Manzoor Elahi, Caste Peracha resident of Phaliya Road, Mandi Baha-udDin, and Mohsin Nazir Barki the then Sub- Registrar and others, for cancellation of the registered Deeds Nos.997 and 998 alleging therein that he had purchased a piece of land measuring 2 Kanal in Khewat No,3, Khatoni Nos.53 to 57 situated in village Kandhanwala, Tehsil and District M.B. Din from Saee Muhammad son of Jewan through registered Deed No, 678 dated 30-8-2000 and after completion of the sale-deed, he constructed there five shops. After construction of the shops, said Sabir Shah in collusion with Mehmood Elahi Peracha the present petitioner got prepared a FardBadr' and on the basis of `Fard Badr' entered into a mutation and got sanctioned two registered Deeds Nos.997 and 998 from Mohsin Nazir Burki, the then Sub-Registrar, M.B. Din defining the boundaries of the constructed shops belonging to the applicant Falak Sher respondent No,2 herein. He further stated in the application that he brought this fact into the knowledge/notice of Sub-Registrar, who himself visited the spot and intentionally and deliberately sanctioned the sale-deeds and caused a heavy loss to him. He alleged in his application that all fraud was committed in order to deprive him from the valuable property/shops, which he had constructed from his own pocket. The enquiry was entrusted to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) namely Mehr Maqsood Ahmad Luk, who called both the parties and heard them at length. On his transfer, the enquiry was ' entrusted to present respondent No, 1 . The respondent No,1 vide, his impugned report concluded that the Sale-Deeds Nos.997 and 998 on the basis of `Fard Badr' were fabricated and forged documents and observed that these wrong registered deeds were liable to be cancelled and that the electricity meter installed at the land of the petitioner is liable to be removed and a new one is to be installed iii the name of real owner of the land namely Falak Sher, respondent No,2. He also initiated criminal proceedings against Sabir Hussain and Mehmood Elahi, the vendor and the vendee.
2. The petitioner Mehmood Elahi has taken exception to the inquiry report dated 5-2-2003 through the instant writ petition.
3. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents and today Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,2, Falak Sher.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that three civil suits (i) Muhammad Ashraf etc. v. Sabir Hussain Shah and Hadi Hussain Shah for declaration with regard to the land measuring 2 Kanals bearing Khatuni Nos.3/54 to 57 situated in Mauza Kandhanwala, Tehsil and District M. B. Din as per record of rights for the year 1996-97, (ii) Imtiaz Hussain Shah and another v. Saee son of Jewan and others and (iii) Mehmood Elahi Peracha v. Saee son of Jewan etc. All the three suits were filed with regard to the land situated in Khasra Nos.1654, 1886, 1889, 1652 and 1653, 1261, 1247/841/1, 1247/811/1, 1554/1247/811, 1247/811 and 824. The learned counsel further contended that during pendency of the above said civil suits the said application had been filed by the applicant/respondent No,2 and in all the above mentioned suits Falak Sher, is a party, somewhere as plaintiff and somewhere as defendant. Also contended that respondent No,1 was not competent to adjudicate upon the validity of the sale-deeds. It is the Civil Court, which is competent to determine the genuineness/ ingenuineness of the registered documents.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,2 vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the petitioner acquired the land through forged and fabricated sale-deeds in connivance with Sabir Hussain Shah, who was not owner of the land.
Further contended that Inquiry Officer/respondent No,1 has given its findings under the direction of the High Court in a Writ Petition No,6575 of 2001 filed by respondent No,2 titled `Falak Sher v.
Assistant Commissioner, Mandi Bahaud-Din. It is further contended that the parallel proceedings of civil and criminal can be proceeded against a person who committed forgery and acquired the property through deceitful means. He relied upon the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narowal and 5 others PLD 1992 Lahore 178 and Muhammad Azam v. Saee Muhammad and others 2000 SCMR 774.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record at limine stage and decided to dispose of the same as a notice case.
7. Respondent No,1 had filed a complaint before the Army Monitoring Cell on 1-1-2001 complaining against the petitioner and one Sabir Hussain Shah that they by clapping hands with each other prepared the alleged Sale-Deed Nos.997 and 998 depriving of the petitioner from his property.
8. Falak Sher-respondent No,2, alongwith Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Riaz, Qamar-uz-Zaman his real brothers had filed suit for declaration against Sabir Hussain Shah and others claiming in the plaint that they are owners in possession over the property in dispute vide a registered Sale- Deed No,678 attested on 30-8-2000 restraining the defendants Sabir Hussain Shah and another from alienating the said property more than their share. The suit was instituted on 12-9-2000 and the other suit with regard to the same property had been filed by Imtiaz Hussain Shah, Nusrat Tauqir, Haider Shah sons of Syed Aman Ullah Shah against Saee son of Jewan, Muhammad Ashraf, Falak Sher and his brothers Sabir Hussain Shah and Hadi Hussain challenging the registered Sale- Deed No,678 executed in favour of respondent No,2 and others with regard to the same subject matter. This suit was instituted on 1-12-2000 in which present petitioner filed an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. To be impleaded as a party but his request was declined by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court and at last the present petitioner filed his own suit against respondent No,2 and others with regard to the same property, i.e, shops allegedly claimed by respondent No,2. This suit was filed on 16-7-2001.
9. Respondent No,2 lodged the complaint on 1-1-2001 while both suits referred to above were filed prior to the complaint. The subject-matter/suit property in these suits was the same and during pendency of these suits, the D.D.O.(R) initiated enquiry proceedings with regard to the sale-deeds.
10. The presumption of truth is attached to the registered documents under sections 58 to 60 of the Registration Act. The adjudication with regard to the genuineness/ingenuineness of the registered documents can be made by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that is the Civil Court under section 9 of C.P.C.
11. The Revenue Officer under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is empowered to dispose of or take cognizance of the matter in which Government, the Board of Revenue vest on it, the Revenue Officer has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matters as provided in subsection (2) of section 172 of the Act. The Revenue Officer further enjoys the power under section 175 of the Act to remove encroachment made by any person from the land reserved for common purposes.
12. So far as the enquiry with regard to the registered documents is concerned, there is no provision in the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 which empowers a Revenue Officer to inquire into such-like matter. Even the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 has not empowered the Revenue Officer to take cognizance of the matter like the matter in hand.
13. The registered Sale-Deed Nos.997 and 998 registered by the Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act can be challenged through a civil suit and it is the Civil Court which is competent to declare the same as a forged and fabricated. I procedure is provided in section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 to make an enquiry before registration by the Sub-Registrar which reads as under:-- "Section 34 (1).---Subject to the provisions contained in this part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69,. 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the person executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the Registering Officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 provided that if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered."
' The Registration Officer shall thereupon-
(a) enquire whether or not such
14. Document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.
(4) An application for a direction under the proviso to subsection (1) may be lodged with a Sub- Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate.
' It means that if there is any complaint to the Sub-Registrar he can make enquiry in this regard before registering the document. In this case the Sub-Registrar had made inquiry at site and thereafter registered the Sale-Deeds Nos.798 and 799.
14. The present petitioner had filed a suit for declaration in respect of the property in dispute on the basis of said two registered sale-deeds attested on 16-12-2001 in his favour which were the subject matter of the suit. Section 195, Cr.P.C. Deals with the prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence and this section further emerges, that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under sections 471, 475 and 476, P.P.C., when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a document produced or given 'n such proceeding except on the complaint n writing of such Court, or of some other 'Court to which such Court is subordinate.
15. The Civil Court has not determined as yet that the alleged sale-deeds (798 and 799) were result of fraud and fabrication. The proposition dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court was the interpretation of section 195(1) (c) wherein it was held that the offences mentioned in this clause are non-cognizable offences and the police has, before it can embark upon their investigation, to obtain the permission of a Magistrate. The facts of this case and the proposition are not attracted to this case.
16. The question that boils down for determination in this case is whether the D.D.O.( R) was competent to adjudicate or make an investigation with regard to registered sale-deed, registered under the Registration Act.
17. It is the power of a police officer to register a case/F.I.R. On a complaint made to it with regard to commission of a cognizable offence. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Contemplates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, any every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government prescribes in this behalf:-- ' Section 156, Cr.C. Further narrates that:---
(1) Any officer incharge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under subsection (3) of section 156 of the Cr.P.C. Is empowered under section 190 to make investigation as above mentioned.
18. From the plain reading of the above provisions of section 156, Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the police under this section has the statutory right to investigate the circumstances of the alleged cognizable crime without any permission from the judicial authorities and such statutory right cannot be interfered with by the judiciary.
19. There is no cavil with the fact that the parallel civil as well as criminal inquiry can continue before the appropriate forum but respondent No,1, D.D.O. (R) was not the appropriate forum in this regard. He lacks the jurisdiction to make any inquiry with regard to the private property of a person.
Respondent No,2 neither based the findings of the Civil Court nor approached the police officer in exercise of his power under section 154, Cr.P.C.
20. As to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the D.D.O. Has proceeded under the direction of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,6576 of 2001 titled `Falak Sher v. A.C. Etc.'
This petition was filed by respondent No,2, which came up for hearing before this Court on 23-4- 2001. The complaint before the Army Monitoring Cell filed by the petitioner, was submitted on 1-1- 20Q1 which was remitted to respondent No,1 for inquiry. It means that application of said respondent No,2 was prior in time than filing of his writ petition, which was disposed of on 3-12-2001 with the observation as under:-- "The Deputy District Officer (Revenue) is still conducting the inquiry relating to the matter agitated in the present petition. This case is, therefore, ;disposed of. The petitioner, however, shall have a right to all available legal remedies on the basis of the report in question."
' It is clarified that this /Court had not directed respondent No,1 make inquiry It is an admitted fact that the inquiry proceedings on the/ application of respondent No,2 Falaly Sher were already pending before respondent No,1. The contention of Warned counsel for respondent No,2 that the inquiry was made under the direction of this Court is misconceived. Respondent No,1 has concluded the inquiry with certain observations and according to the observation of this -Court in disposing of Writ-Petition (6575 of 2001) respondent No, availed of any of the legal has not remedy.
' For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in observing that the inquiry proceeding and the impugned report dated 5-2-2003 by respondent No,1 is without backing of any legal authority, hence declared to have been initiated illegally and without lawful authority and of no legal effect and therefore, quashed. The present petition succeeds.