Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 604 2021 SLD 604 2021 SCMR 391
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2020, decided on 15th December, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th December, 2020. (Against the judgment Dated 14.1.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in C.R. No. 903-D of 2009)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Nabi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Malik Javed Akhtar Wains, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 3-9.

SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS

VS

IMAM BAKHSH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 172(2)(xvi)

Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 172(2)(xvi)--- Proceedings before Revenue Officers/Revenue Courts---Nature---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) cancelling a sale mutation carried out in jalsa-e-aam in the presence of witnesses on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation---Legality---Proceedings before the Revenue Officer or before the Revenue Courts were summary in nature and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed question of fact were not to be adjudicated in the hierarchy---Determination of complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact fell within the sole domain of the civil Court---Plea that a mutation entry was procured through fraud, could not have been decided in proceedings which were summary in nature as such controversy required adjudication by allowing the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims---Section 172 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 only empowered the Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers; the raison detre for the same was that the proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court were summary in nature; they possessed a limited scope of enquiry and did not possess the characteristics of a civil suit that necessitated framing of the issues or recording evidence of the parties, as such matters fell within the sole domain of the civil courts---Besides, S. 172(2)(xvi) of the 1967 Act left the adjudication of plea of fraud to the competence of the civil courts---Deputy District Officer (Revenue) [DDO(R)] transgressed his limits in the present case by declaring the subject mutation as having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Appeal was allowed. JUDGMENT SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--- This appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the said Court while reversing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents seeking setting aside of orders dated 26.3.2002 and 19.8.2003 passed by the Deputy District Officer (DDO) and Executive District Offer (Revenue) (EDO) respectively. Cancellation of registered sale deed dated 29.3.2002 executed by one Imam Bakhsh…
🔒
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