Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1706 2018 SLD 1706 2018 CLC 1227
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 672-D of 2011, heard on 25-04-2017. Dates of hearing: 24 and 25-04-2017.
MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Sh. Zamir Hussain for Petitioner. Saeed Yousaf Khan for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Nadeem Akhtar Bhatti, Assistant A.G. for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 5 to 7.

MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR

VS

ABDUL RAZAQ AND 6 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----Ss. 53 & 172---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R. 5---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Review of longstanding mutation by Revenue Officer---Jurisdiction---Mutation of inheritance of a person not dead but untraceable---Effect---Plaintiff contended that he, along with other defendants, was owner in possession being bona fide purchasers and contesting defendants had wrongly got mutation reviewed by District Officer (Revenue) who had no jurisdiction to review the same---Defendants contended that their predecessor-in-interest was not dead but untraceable at the time when mutations were got incorporated in with connivance of revenue staff---Validity---Exercise of jurisdiction by the District Officer (Revenue), was unwarranted and uncalled for because when a person questioned the vires of mutation or longstanding entries in the revenue record on the ground of fraud, he had to file a suit for declaration before the Civil Court as is required under S. 53 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967---Revenue authorities were thus only competent to make the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations, if the wrong entry was the outcome of any omission or inadvertence, as was envisaged in S. 172(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967---If a person considered himself aggrieved by any entry in a record of rights or in a periodical record and he was of the view that such entries were the product of fraud, which were even longstanding then his remedy lay in filing a civil suit as per mandate of S. 53 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967---Plaintiff in his plaint though had specifically asserted that defendants sold the suit land after receipt of sale consideration by way of mutation and on the same day he transferred the same to the plaintiff and others through mutation but this fact was not specifically controverted by defendants in their written statement, rather it was pleaded that other defendant was minor at the relevant time and he was not competent to enter into any sale transaction---Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492