SHAHRA and others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others

ORDER

' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- The suit filed by the respondents to pre-empt sale of the land in dispute made in favour of the petitioners on the ground of tenancy was decreed by the Collector. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and revision petition too by the Board of Revenue. Constitutional petition filed against these orders by them has been dismissed by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 1-3-2000 against which leave is sought.

2. After the passing of decree, the respondents decree-holders got Mutation No .4 sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner on 31-1-1989 in their favour against which the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector alleging that in fact whole of the land shown to have been sold had not in fact been sold, as such, the same was wrongly made as subject-matter of the suit of pre-emption and decree illegally obtained about whole of it, therefore, no mutation could be sanctioned in favour of the respondents for whole of the land in pursuance of the said preemption decree. They also maintained that order of Executing Court should have been obtained for sanction of mutation.

3. None of the contentions found favour with the Courts below and the objections raised by the petitioners were found to be without any merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned as to how the petitioners could go behind the decree passed in the pre-emption suit and contend that sale in fact was not made as indicated in the sale transaction itself under the said plea unless regarding the said plea, they had succeeded in the pre-emption suit has no answer. Sanction of mutation in pursuance of decree of a Civil Court was merely a formality and was not independent act and according to law did not by itself independently had the effect of creating any right. According to law, the Revenue Authorities were bound to make changes in the Revenue Recordaccording to the decree of the Civil Court and in this case, admittedly decree passed in the pre-emption suit related to whole of the land about A which mutation was sanctioned, therefore, no objection could be raised that in fact whole of the land had not been sold.

5. The objection that mutation could only be sanctioned on the order of the Execution Court also does not have any legal basis. On the deposit of the pre-emption money as ordered in the pre- emption decree according to well-settled law, the pre-emptor/decree-holder was vested with full ownership rights of the land subject-matter of the suit of preemption about which decree was passed, therefore, as regards sanction of mutation, the same could be made on the basis of decree without resorting to Executing Court under the revenue laws.

6. The Executing Court in such matters would be involved in case the judgment-debtor fails to deliver possession of the land which is required to be delivered by the Executing Court by issuance of warrant of possession, therefore, there was no requirement of law that before sanction of mutation on the basis of pre-emption decree, the Revenue Court should have required the petitioners to obtain order from the Executing Court.

7, For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.