SARDAR and 5 others vs RASHID AHMAD and 12 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Lahore High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership. The original owner gifted his land to his sister, which was later settled via a compromise decree splitting the property equally. However, the revenue record erroneously reflected the transfer of the entire land to the petitioners, who had purchased the sister's share. Revenue authorities subsequently corrected the mutation to align with the compromise decree and the registered sale deed. The Supreme Court addressed whether the revenue authorities' correction of the mutation was subject to interference under Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that mutation entries do not establish title, which must be independently proven. Since the revenue authorities were merely correcting an obvious mistake to align with the registered deed and the compromise, their actions were not subject to interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that if the petitioners' title was in doubt, they must seek relief through courts of plenary jurisdiction.
- Do mutation entries in revenue records establish title to land?
- Can the correction of a mutation entry by revenue authorities be challenged under Constitutional jurisdiction?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a party claiming a cloud on their title to land after a mutation correction?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 24-4-1991 whereby a Constitution petition filed by them was dismissed, in limine..
2. Ghulam Muhammad was the original owner of the land measuring 50 Kanals 19 Marlas who gifted away his entire land to his sister. The gift was challenged. A compromise was however, reached on 24-1-1949 whereby Ghulam Muhammad and Mst. Bibi (the sister), satisfied themselves with half the property in dispute. This compromise decree was not, however, incorporated in the revenue record. Mst. Bibi sold her share out of the property in dispute in favour of the petitioners by a registered deed. In giving effect to it in the revenue record, the entire 50 Kanals 19 Marlas of land was shown as having been alienated in favour of the petitioners. On an application made by the respondents, the revenue authorities proceeded to correct the mutation and to bring it in accord with the registered deed and the compromise in Court. The Member, Board of Revenue allowed the correction. A writ petition challenging the action of the Member, Board of Revenue was instituted which has been dismissed in limine.
3. The petitioners' case against the compromise decree is that it remained unexecuted and against the registered deed is that the mutation was given effect to notwithstanding that registered deed.
4. It is established law that mutation entries do not establish title which had to be independently proved. In this case, the mistake is obvious in giving effect to registered deed. The revenue authorities had gone beyond it. The steps taken to correct the mistake cannot be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction. If the petitioners consider that their title in the land has come under cloud, they have a remedy to resort to Courts of pleanary jurisdiction for enforcement of their rights.
5. No case is made out for interference. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mst. BANO alias GUL BANO and others vs Begum DILSHAD ALAM and 4 2011 CLC 88
- KAMAL SHAH vs Mst. ZOBIADA BEGUM 2009 MLD 1470
- IKHTIAR MUHAMMAD and another vs Haji ABDULLAH JAN and 4 others 2008 PLD Quetta 7
- Syed SARDAR SHAH and 2 others vs Qazi MASOOD ALAM and 5 others 2003 CLC 857