KALU KHAN vs PURDIL KHAN and 10 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a land dispute involving the validity of two mutations sanctioned in 1972 and 1973, which purportedly transferred the same land. The petitioner challenged the mutations on several grounds: he was never summoned during the attestation process; the mutations were not reflected in the Jamabandi for ten years; the transactions were absent from consolidation proceedings; and the alleged sale price was suspiciously low. The Supreme Court found these contentions raised significant, disturbing questions regarding the legitimacy of the transactions. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. Furthermore, the Court addressed the petitioner's offer to resolve the long-standing dispute through a special oath in the Islamic spirit. The Court directed the Registrar to summon both parties, record their statements regarding the special oath, and administer the oath in accordance with the law, with the resulting proceedings to be placed before the Court at the final hearing of the appeal.
- Can a court direct the Registrar to facilitate the administration of a special oath between parties during the pendency of an appeal?
- Does the absence of mutations in Jamabandi records and consolidation proceedings raise a triable issue regarding the validity of a land transfer?
- Is the grant of leave to appeal appropriate when there are disturbing allegations regarding the procedural fairness of mutation attestations?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CI-Although the land dispute out of which this petition for leave to appeal arises stands decided by findings of fact, learned counsel has brought to our notice some factors which indeed are disturbing. One, that the petitioner who is present in Court, as asserted by him, was never summoned to make statement at the time of the attestation of the mutations in question. Secondly, that the sale of the suit land alleged to have been made by the petitioner, in favour of the respondents was sought to be proved by two mutations. One was sanctioned on 12- 2-1972 and the other on 23-1-1973. The extraordinary feature of these mutations is that they purported to witness the sale of the same land. Thirdly learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the mutations were fraudulent because till about 10 years later none of them had been entered in the Jamabandi. He also supported this contention by asserting that none of those two mutations was reflected in the consolidation proceedings which admittedly involved the land in dispute. Fourthly he contended that the price alleged to have been paid for such valuable land as it was in 1970 is ridiculously low; namely less than a rupee per Marla. And lastly, after a growling session with the petitioner in Court (during the hearing of this petition) during which learned counsel tried to cross-examine his own client the petitioner stood the test and ultimately made an offer that in case the aforenoted arguments fail, he would be ready and willing to offer the decision of this long-standing dispute through special Oath in the true Islamic spirit.
2. ' In the light of what has been stated above we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
3. Order accordingly.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner may give an application to the Registrar with regard to the offer of special Oath. The Registrar shall not wait for the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, he will in the meanwhile summon both the sides and record their statements on the question of special Oath and administer Oath in accordance with law and the statements made by the parties. The said proceedings shall be placed before the Court when the appeal is taken up for final hearing.