SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus NEK MUHAMMAD
ORDER
Brief facts of these cases are that Khasra No.1379 measuring (2K‑5M I.S.) is situated in Pakpattan City (within Municipal limits). Shah Muhammad Petitioner, Nek Muhammad and Israil respondents were allottees of Plot belonging to Mithra Dass, Banarsi Dass and Kalu Ram, but PTD was issued of the property which was belonging to one Darya Bakhsh. Shah Muhammad petitioner who was alleged to be tenant on the suit land filed a civil suit stating therein that the disputed Khasra No.1379 was a Trust Property and not an Evacuee Property so it can not be allotted to the respondents. The suit was dismissed meaning thereby the property in dispute was declared as Evacuee. Later on, Sale Mutations No.6070 to 6077, 6079 and 6081 were sanctioned on 19‑4‑1983 by which the land was proportionately distributed amongst the petitioner No.1 and the respondents. The petitioner No.1 challenged the validity of these mutations in time‑barred appeals stating therein that the land be divided equally amongst them. The Collector vide his order dated 29‑2‑1988 after condoning the delay remanded the cases to AC‑I1 for fresh decision on the ground that the property in question belonged to Darya takhsh son of Rang Lai whereas the respondents held P.T.D. pertaining to the property left by Mithra Dass etc. That order of the Collector was assailed in appeals by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner who vide impugned order dated 12‑4‑1989 set aside the order of the Collector. Hence these revision petitions a/s 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act; 1967.
2. Since the subject‑matter of these revision petitions is common therefore these are being taken up together and will be disposed of by the single order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although in an urban area the mutations are not of‑much consequence yet mutation can be only ‑attested after meeting the requirements of Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act i.e. in the presence of the parties and, on this account, the order of A.C‑II is liable to be set aside. The mutations were sanctioned for the property of Darya Bakhsh whereas the respondents were the allottees of, and the PTDs were issued for, the property belonging to Banarsi Dass, Mithra Dass and Kalu Ram. No inquiry was made by the Patwari whereas the petitioners have constructed the houses on the plot belonging to Darya Bakhsh. The respondents in connivance with the Field Staff have manipulated the Revenue Record and mutations have been got sanctioned in respect of Khasra No.1379 belonging to Darya Bakhsh. The mutation is therefore illegal and not in accordance with P.T.D. It was prayed that the revision petitions may be accepted:
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that litigation regarding this particular Property No.3126, has been going on since 1971 when it was held to be evacuee property by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner vide order dated 4‑2‑1971. The Civil Suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Civil Court and as was their civil, revision directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below by the Lahore High Court on the ground that even if the applicants were tenants that would not give them any right to question the transfer order passed by the Settlement Authorities. Now that the mutations lead been attested in pursuance of PTD issued by the Settlement Authorities the petitioners were taking another course of litigation by challenging the mutation. The appeals before the Collector were time barred by 5 years and it was prayed that the revision petitions may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is admitted that all the impugned mutations were entered and attested in consequence of the P.T.Ds. issued by the Settlement Department to the respondents as far back as 1971 for Property No.3130 etc., in favour of the respondents. The petitioners' declaratory civil suit for annulment of orders dated 4‑2‑1971 and 22‑7‑1971 by the Settlement Authorities was dismissed after which Mutations Nos.6070 to 6077, 6079 and 6081 were entered and attested. The case was remanded by the Collector to the AC‑11 for fresh decision on the ground that the property in question belonged to Darya Bakhsh s/o Rang Lai. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfactorily explain that if the property belonged to Darya Bakhsh s/o Ranr Lai then why were petitioners aggrieved of the orders of the Settlement Authorities dated 4‑2‑1971 and 22‑2‑1971. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged these orders in the Civil Court which is indicative of the fact that the P.T.Ds. pertained to the property in dispute. The learned Collector also did not give any reasons in his order dated 29‑2‑1988 for holding that the property belonged to Darya Bakhsh s/o Rang Lai and not to Banarsi Dass and Mithra Dass etc. As has been noted earlier the mutations were attested in pursuance' of the Permanent Transfer Deeds issued by the Settlement Authorities. The petitioners were not able to establish their title to the property in dispute. The PTD for purposes of mutation is to be equated with the registered deed or decree of the Court under section 42(7) ibid, because the presence of an evacuee person or the Central/Provincial Government is neither possible nor practicable in such a case. No illegality or irregularity was thus committed by the Revenue Officer while attesting the impugned mutations. The revision petitions are thus found to be without merit and are accordingly dismissed.
A.A./489/R Revision dismissed.