AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 1-2- 2001 and 17-4-2002 passed by the respondent No,1 on a Review Petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 1-2-2001 passed on the revision of the respondent No,5 whereby the second revision petition was allowed against the Petitioner.
2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and in cultivating possession of agricultural land located in Survey Nos. 158, 159, 160, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 616, 618, 619, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 634, 635 and 645 measuring 77 Acres, 18 Guntas in Kadairo.
Tando Muhammad Khan, District Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said Agricultural land from Muhammad Deen through registered General Power of Attorney after paying the entire sale consideration. He further claims that the petitioner has also paid entire Government dues and obtained Transfer Order. The land was thereafter mutated in the name of the petitioner in the records of rights on 22-8-1992.
3. The respondent No,5 claims that he was the grantee of the aforesaid land and had made an application to the respondent No,4 in the year 1993 challenging the title of the petitioner on the ground that the registered General Power of Attorney on the basis of which the land was transferred/mutated in favour of the applicant was bogus.
4. On 21-3-1993 the respondent No,4 has dismissed the application of the respondent No,5 directing him to approach the Civil Court as according to him the Revenue Court did not have the jurisdiction to cancel a registered instrument.
5. An Appeal was preferred by the respondent No,5 before the respondent No,3 against the order of respondent No,4, which, too, was dismissed on 24-7-1993 affirming the order of respondent No,4.
The respondent No,5 did not challenge both these orders before any other forum.
6. On 2-10-1993 the respondent No,5 filed Suit No,73 of 1993 before Senior Civil Judge Tando Muhammad Khan, seeking cancellation of the said registered General Power of Attorney. On 27-11- 1996 said suit of the respondent No,5 was dismissed and an application under Order IX, rule 9, C.P.C.
Is pending before the said Court.
7. It has been pleaded in the petition that on account of political influence, the respondent No,5 made a miscellaneous application before the respondent No,4 for cancellation of entries in favour of the petitioner pertaining to the said land. The respondent No,4 overlooking the previous orders of his predecessor and higher authority, ex facie under the political influence had allowed the application of the respondent Nos.5 on 31-1-1996, against which the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No,3 who by his order dated 15-9-1996 set aside the order of respondent No,4 holding therein that the respondent No,4 did not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
8. The respondent No,5 preferred a revision against the order of respondent No,3 before respondent No,2 who also dismissed the said revision on 27-12-1997.
9. The respondent No,5 filed second revision before respondent No,1 which revision was allowed by order dated 1-2-2001. The petitioner preferred review of the order before the respondent No,1 which review application of the petitioner was dismissed on 17-4-2002 which orders are impugned in these proceedings.
10. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the Revenue Authority has passed orders directing the parties to approach the Civil Courts, it was improper for the respondent No,4 to entertain any application of the respondent No,5 and all subsequent orders in his favour were passed without lawful authority. He further submitted that a registered document could not be cancelled by the Revenue Authorities and in the present case the registered Power of Attorney, therefore, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities to be gone into. He further submitted that even otherwise once the respondent No,5 had approached the Civil Court the Revenue Authorities should not have entertained application of the respondent No,5 on the same issues which they have earlier adjudicated upon by directing the respondent No,5 to approach the Civil Court.
11. Mr. Younus Behan, learned Advocate for the respondent No,5, has argued that the entry was kept on the basis of bogus document and therefore, the Revenue Authorities had the jurisdiction to entertain the application. He further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No,1 were lawful and no illegality has been committed in passing these orders.
12. Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional Advocate-General has not supported the impugned orders.
13. We hav e heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. Once the respondent No,5 approached the Civil Court pursuant to the directions of the Revenue Authorities all the subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Authorities were nullity in the eye of law. In this regard the provisions of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act are self-speaking. Under section 39 of the said Act a registered instrument cannot be cancelled without intervention of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The respondent No,5 had already approached the Civil Court for cancellation of the registered instrument, the respondent No,1 could not have passed the impugned orders in respect of the same issues pending before the Civil Court moreso in view of the bar of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. The respondent No,1 transgressed his limits in passing the impugned orders. The Revenue Authorities in law could not examine the authenticity of any registered instrument in exercise of their powers under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, which in the present case has been overlooked.
15. We register our displeasure over the working of the officials of the Revenue Authorities in entertaining the applications of the nature. c We have noticed that these Revenue Officer do not apply their independent mind while passing orders. The public functionaries should discharge their duties honestly without accepting any influence from any quarter.
16. Under these circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons we have allowed this petition by our short order of 3-9-2003.
17. Since this is an old matter we, therefore, direct the trial Court to dispose of the Suit of the respondent No,5 in accordance with law expeditiously after notice to the parties within four months from the date of receipt of this order.