Law:

Section:

Mutation-Gift-Mutation sanctioned-Donor revoking gift subsequently - Mutation in favour of donee cannot be upset.  dissented from. ORDER   This is a revision petition against the order of the Commis sioner, Lahore Division, dated 2nd November 1961, whereby he dismissed Fateh Din petitioner's appeal from Collector, Kasur's order dated 29-7-1961, sanctioning mutation No. 120 of village Orara.   The facts are that the petitioner had gifted the land in dispute in favour of the respondents-Mst. Umar Khatoon, his daughter-in-law and Nawab Din, son-in-law by registered deed dated 28-7-1959. Mutation No. 48 was sanctioned on 27-4-60, by the Revenue Officer. Later on the petitioner. who is an aged old gentleman, went up in appeal to the Collector on the ground that the gift was got executed through fraud and that possession, despite recital in the registered deed, had not been transferred. The Collector refused to interfere and directed the petitioner to seek his remedy in the Civil Court, His suit was rejected by the Civil Court on the ground that since the land in suit was evacuee land, he was not competent to adjudicate on the issue by virtue of certain provisions in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement laws.   Baulked in his efforts to obtain redress through this normal remedy, the petitionertried to avoid the gifts by execut ing, a registered deed, dated 25-11-60, revoking the former gift. He, was successful in getting the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Kasur, to give effect to this deed of revocation in mutation No. 120, attested on 7-8-61, the ground given being, that possession of the land in dispute had not been transferred by the donor to the donee. Mst. Umar Khatoon went up in appeal against this order to the Collector Kasur, who set aside this second order on the ground that the R. O. was not justified in attesting the mutation when the property was not that of Fateh Din petitioner according to the Revenue Records.   This learned Commissioner has given sound reasons for Maintaining the Collector'sorder. The petitioner's counsel has cited Mr. M. Z. Khan's ruling reported at P L D 1958 W P (Rev.) 82. The relevant…