Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)

Section: 42,54

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10A

(a)    Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 45---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Entries, alteration of--Aggrieved party not intimated---Scope and effect---Petitioners filed an application in the year 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging two mutations being attested in the year 2012 which essentially changed/altered the earlier entries having been initially incorporated in the year 1929---Said application was rejected being barred by limitation---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Case of the petitioners was that the longstanding entries in their names consistently coming from 1929/30 have been altered on the basis of fake and fraudulent documents; that these attestations in the revenue record were made behind their back in the year 2012; that they acquired knowledge about the said alteration of their longstanding entries in the year 2017 and immediately challenged the same--Validity---From perusal of record it is clear that entries in favour of the petitioners were being consistently reflected in the revenue record since 192930---Admittedly, said longstanding entries in their favour were altered in the year 2012 on the basis of provisional allotment Form LC-9 dated 21.10.1959 and LC-11 dated nil---In fact, the respondents first entered and attested Mutation No. 3507 on 10.03.2012 in favour of their predecessor and then through inheritance Mutation No. 3553 dated 07.04.2012 became owners themselves---There is nothing on record to establish that before altering the said longstanding entries, the petitioners were put on notice---As such it is only natural that petitioners would learn about the said change only when any interference was made in their possession or they were informed by someone--In absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioners when they assert knowledge from 2017 when they immediately challenged the altering/disputed mutations before the revenue hierarchy---Said aspect also needs consideration and, in such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is valid and needs to be properly…