 |
| 2026 CLC 307 |
— پرانی جمعبندی اندراجات کو نوٹس کے بغیر تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا
مختصر کہانی
اہم قانونی نکات
منفرد قانونی اصول
Must read Judgment.
2026 CLC 307
[Peshawar]
Before Syed Mudasser Ameer, J
in
KHAIR MUHAMMAD and others ---Petitioners
Versus
HAYAT KHAN and others ---Respondents
Vo
W.P. No. 1738 of 2020 with IR with C.Ms. Nos. 932 of 2021(M), 1690 of 2021(M), 1053 of 2022(M) and 662 of 2024(M), decided on 24th February, 2025.
(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 1929-30---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 also needs consideration and, in such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is valid and needs to be properly addressed after affording the proper opportunity of hearing as required by Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Respondents (revenue fora) ignored this aspect of the case and rejected petitioners' application on the ground of limitation, holding that they could not challenge the entries---Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents (revenue fora) were against the law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice-High Court set-aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to respondent / Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh on merits after affording proper opportunity portunity of hearing to ring to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
-Ss. 42 & 45-Records---Restriction on variations of entries in records-Long standing entries--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 1919---Said application was rejected being barred by limitation being not maintainable---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Held: From perusal of record it is clear that entries in favour of the petitioners were being consistently reflected in the revenue record since 1929-30-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---Longstanding entries in the revenue record, particularly those reflected in successive Jama bandis, cannot be altered by revenue authorities in summary manner---No such power was vested in the revenue authorities--The correction of entries envisaged under S. 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, has very limited scope and can be invoked only in cases where all the parties consented or where it is supported by a decree or order of the Court binding on all parties-Longstanding entries in revenue record reflected in successive Jama bandis have a presumption of truth and correctness is attached to them, which cannot be dislodged lightly in summary manner-Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents (revenue fora) were against the law resulting in grave miscarriage of of justice---High Court set-aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to respondent /Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Waris Khan v. Col. Humayun Shah PLD 1994 SC 336; Rasta Mal Khan v. Nabi Sarwar Khan 1996 SCMR 78; Nemat Ali v. Malik Habib Ullah 2004 SCMR 604; Muhammad Naeem v. Siraj-ud-Din and 6 others 215 CLC 1084; Muhammad Khaliq v. Gul Afzal Khan PLD 2015 SC 247; Inayat Khan and others v. Allah Ditta 2007 SCMR 655 and Abdul Rasheed v. Manzoor Ahmad PLD 2007 SC 287 ref.
(c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---
-S. 42-Records, alteration of--Acquiescence of the party seeking g alteration---Scope alteration- and effect---Petitioners filed an application in the year 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging two mutation, 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 being not maintainable---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Held: From perusal of record it is clear that entries in favour of the petitioners were being consistently reflected in the revenue record since 1929-30---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 the element of acquiescence for having taken no steps for rectification /alteration of record since long-Astonishingly, the respondents' predecessor kept his relied document (the LC-9) of the year 1959 to himself and never sought to give effect to them during his lifetime and the respondents after his death gave effect to it in the year 2012, which clearly suggests that, regardless of the genuineness / veracity of the documents in his favour, the predecessor of respondents had acquiesced to the entries in favour of the petitioners for as along he was alive---Resp as along he was alive--Respondents (revenue fora) ignored venue fora) ignored this aspect of the case and rejected petitioners' application on the ground of limitation, holding that they could not challenge the entries-Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents (revenue fora) were against the law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice-High Court set-aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to respondent/ Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Sultan v. Abdullah Khan 1992 SCMR 1457 ref. Mian Asif Aman for Petitioners. Muhammad Ibrar Khan for Respondents.