ALLAH RAKHA and another vs MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 22nd others
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arises from concurrent orders of the revenue hierarchy, including the Member Board of Revenue, dismissing the petitioners' application for cancellation of mutations allegedly sanctioned through a fictitious and fabricated power of attorney. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities or the constitutional court can resolve intricate questions of fact and law involving fraud and long-standing revenue entries in summary proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that matters involving disputed questions of fact and the recording of evidence cannot be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction or through summary revenue proceedings, and the aggrieved party must approach the civil court. The key principle laid down is that where long-standing entries exist in the revenue record and complex questions of fact and law regarding fraud and fabricated documents are involved, revenue functionaries lack jurisdiction to correct such entries, and the appropriate forum is the civil court.
- Can revenue authorities cancel long-standing mutations based on alleged fraud and fabricated power of attorney through summary proceedings?
- Whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can interfere in matters involving intricate questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence?
- Is a civil court the competent forum to challenge revenue mutations involving long-standing entries and disputed facts?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' The case of the petitioners is that they have made an application to the District Collector on 2-11- 1991 averring therein that evacuee land in village Mari Thakhran (Mustafabad) Tehsil Kamoki District Gujranwala has been allotted to them alongwith their mother Mst. Rahim Bibi against their verified claim and they were unaware of this allotment. One Abdul Aziz Qureshi through a fictitious and fabricated power of attorney in the name of one Aziz Muhammad son of Shah Muhammad respondent No.12, got the land of the petitioner transferred in his name and in the name of another person namely Ghulam Hussain son of Khushi Muhammad respondent No.3 through mutations. It was prayed that the said mutation and the subsequent mutations be reviewed and cancelled. The District Collector vide his order dated 20-8-1992 dismissed the application of the petitioner with the observation that these mutations have been incorporated in the Revenue Record for a long time and the petitioners have been sleeping over their rights. They must seek their remedy through the Civil Court. Their request had also been turned down by the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala vide his order dated 26-7-1993 and the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner has also been met with the same fate by Member Board of Revenue and through his order dated 20-7-2000.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. There was a question of validity of power of attorney and the sanctioning of mutation on the basis of a fabricated document, the general power of attorney. The request made before the District Collector was for cancellation of the transaction/mutations as result of fraud and fabricated document.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner& has contended that the Settlement Department has declared the petitioners alongwith their mother the allottee of the land but the allotment has not been correctly entered in the Revenue Record in their favour. The Revenue hierarchy upto the Board of Revenue declined the prayer of the petitioner with the observation that there is intricate question of law and facts, which could not be determined through summary proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners could be redressed by the Civil Court, which is competent forum.
5. It is an admitted position that the matter involved in the writ petition pertains to the question of fact, which requires recording of evidence and examining of record. This Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in such-like matter as laid down in the case of Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others (1993 SCM R 618), Benedict F.D., Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and three others (1989 SCM R 918) and Federation of Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 SC 476).
The respondents have validly directed the petitioners to resort the alternate remedy available to them. As per provision of para. 7.30 of Land Record MSnual, where there are long standing entries in the Revenue Record and question of law and facts is involved, the revenue functionaries cannot correct these entries and the party has to approach the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the above situation, could not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the revenue functionaries.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine with the direction to the petitioner to avail of alternate remedy available to him under the law.
Cited by 5 cases
- Brig. (R) Masood Salam through Legal Heirs vs Sohail Ahmad and others 2020 PLD Lahore 478, 2020 LHC 937
- ASIF RAZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN 2018 PLC(CS)N 153
- MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR vs ABDUL RAZAQ and 6 Others 2017 LHC 1965
- Mst. HIDAYAT Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Senior Member Board of Revenue 2017 YLRN 454
- Haji GHULAM RABBANI vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, N.As., Gilgit and 5 others 2009 CLC 809