Mst. AISHA BIBI vs NAZIR AHMAD and 10 others

1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Mst. Aisha Bibi, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 2-5-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby R.SA. No, 16/81 filed by Nazir Ahmed and others, respondents herein, was accepted, the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts impugned before him were set aside and the suit of Nazir Ahmed also decreed.

2. ' The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Chuhar, father of Mst. Aisha Bibi, was owner of 95 Kanals of agricultural land in Mauza Warn, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. Mutation No, 3265 was allegedly entered on behalf of Chuhar in respect of sale of 36 Kanals of land in favour of Taj Muhammad, respondent No,4 herein, for a sum of Rs, 15,000 but the same was rejected on the ground of its being violative of Martial Law Regulation 64, para,

25. Chuhar executed a registered sale-deed dated 21-2-1970 regarding sale of 58 Kanals 19 Marlas in favour of Nazir Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Aziz Ahmed, respondents 1 to 3 herein, which was incorporated in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No, 87 attested on 20-12-1970. Since this transaction too, was violative of the provision of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 64, the same was reviewed by Assistant Collector, Sheikhupura vide order dated 22-7-1972 which was appealed against before the Collector but with no success and the revision filed against it was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order 15-6-1974. Having failed on the revenue side, Nazir Ahmed and others/respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for declaration in the Civil Court, seeking declaration of title and challenging the orders of the revenue officers as without lawful authority, impleading Taj Muhammad, All Muhammad and Chuhar, the former two being vendee and mortgagee respectively of the part of the suit land. Mst.

3. Aisha Bibi was also impleaded as she had been gifted 59 Kanals of land vide Mutation No, 737 dated 17-11-1974. After contest, the learned trial Court held that Aziz Ahmed, respondent No,3 herein, was not owner in the village and, as such, the sale in his favour to the extent of 1/2 was void, while the sale in favour of Nazir Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed, respondents 1 and 2, was held valid as they were proved to be owner in the estate and, in consequence, the suit was decreed to the extent of 1/2 in favour of Nazir Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed respondents 1 and 2. The plaintiffs/respondents as well as the defendants/petitioners filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment and decree dated 2-11-1980. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 filed Regular Second Appeal No, 16 of 1981 before the High Court while the petitioner filed Cross- Objection No, 6114-C/81 which were disposed of through the impugned judgment holding that all the orders passed by the hierarchy of officers under the Land Revenue Act were without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the power to declare any transaction as offending the provision of Martial Law Regulation 64 vested in the Land Commission or the Land Commissioners appointed thereunder and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as the other tribunals/authorities were expressly excluded.

4. ' We have heard Mr. Jahangir A. Joja, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Qureshi.

5. Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 4; and have perused the record of the case.

6. As is apparent from the above narration of facts, the suit land was sold by the Chuhar, the original owner, in favour of Nazir Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Aziz Ahmed respondents 1 to 3 through a registered sale-deed which was followed by a mutation as the revenue officers were bound to give effect to all transactions completed through registered deeds in the Revenue Record. There being no mistake apparent on the face of record, the Revenue Officers in the exercise of their review could not set aside the earlier order of attestation of mutation thereby annulling the solemn transaction of sale entered into between the vendor and the vendees in respect of the valuable landed property, moreso, on the grounds regarding which the jurisdiction expressly vested in the Land Commission or their subordinate officers and not in any other forum including the Civil Court.

7. Since the hierarchy of Revenue Officers act in different capacities under different laws, it. Appears that the Revenue Officer also being vested with the powers of Land Commissioner reviewed the mutation on grounds available under Martial Law Regulations, and the whole exercise was conducted under this mistaken belief. There is no denying the fact, that when an officer acts under different statute he has to strictly follow the procedure embodied therein and cannot exercise his powers availing the provision of other statute. Apparently, the Revenue Officer while exercising his powers of review under the Land Revenue Act could not simultaneously act under Martial Law Regulation concerned and if he was of the view that any provisions of the Martial Law Regulation had been violated, his duty was to refer the matter to the Land Commission or the Deputy Land Commissioner who was supposed to be the principal officer of the district concerning land disputes. The impugned judgment is based on sound reasoning and finding no legal error, we decline to grant leave to appeal.

8. ' Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed and leave to .