Sardar Muhammad and others vs. Imam Bakhsh and others (Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2020)

Proceedings before Revenue Officers/Courts are summary in nature, and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact are not to be adjudicated. Such matters fall within the sole domain of civil Court and not the Revenue Court. It is pertinent to note that section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 (“Act”) allocate certain matters to the sole competence of the Revenue authorities. However, this section only empowers the Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers. Moreover, Section 172(2)(xvi) of the Act leaves the adjudication of plea of fraud to the sole competence of the civil courts.

The Supreme Court in Sardar Muhammad and others vs. Imam Bakhsh and others (Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2020) inter alia elaborates on the aforementioned holdings in the context of whether the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) could strike off a sale mutation on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud. I have prepared a concise case brief detailing the facts, issues, and holdings of the Supreme Court.

Sardar Muhammad and others vs. Imam Bakhsh and others (Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2020)

Facts:

Imam Baksh (“Baksh”) filed an appeal before Deputy District Officer (Revenue) (“DDOR”) seeking cancellation of sale mutation no. 4855 dated 28.02.2002 (“Mutation”) on ground that it was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. The DDRO through order (“DDRO Order”) cancelled the mutation relying on the fact that Baksh was old and sick when the mutation was made. Three days after cancellation of the Mutation, Appellant sold property through registered sale deed (“Sale Deed”) to Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (“R2/9”). The Appellant challenged the DDRO Order before Executive District Officer (Revenue) (“EDOR”) and sought cancellation of the Sale Deed. The EDOR through order (“EDOR Order”) rejected the appeal on the ground that a registered sale deed could only be cancelled by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Appellant then filed a suit against respondents challenging the DDRO’s and EDOR’s respective orders along with cancellation of the Sale Deed. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. R2/9 filed an appeal which was dismissed. R2/9 thereafter filed a revision petition before Lahore High Court which reversed the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The Appellant thereafter filed the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments:

The Appellants inter alia contended that:

·?????Mutation was carried out in jalsa-e-aam in presence of two witnesses which records unequivocal sale to Appellant, and such Mutation could not be challenged by DDOR;

·?????The DDRO did not have jurisdiction because (i) record did not require any rectification; and plea of fraud requires adjudication through evidence, a process which could not be adopted by DDOR in summary proceedings; and

·?????Baksh challenged the Mutation on ground of fraud and so burden of proof was on him.

The Respondents inter alia contended that:

·?????Findings of DDOR have attained finality and cannot be interfered with;

·?????Respondents purchased land after Mutation was cancelled and so they were bona fide purchasers; and

·?????Appellants have failed to prove the oral sale agreement which resulted in the Mutation and have failed to bring an attesting witness, nor have they brought the concerned Tehsildar.

Issue: Whether the DDOR had the power to strike off a sale mutation on the ground that such sale was procured through misrepresentation and fraud?

Held: The DDOR does not have the power to strike off a sale mutation on the ground that such sale was procured through misrepresentation and fraud. Consequently, the Sale Deed has to give way to the Mutation.

Reasoning:

·?????Proceedings before Revenue Officers/Courts are summary in nature, and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact are not to be adjudicated. Such matters fall within the sole domain of civil Court. Consequently, as the plea in volves disputed questions of fact the matter could not have been decided by the DDOR.

·?????Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 (“Act”) allocate certain matters to the sole competence of the Revenue authorities. However, this section only empowers the Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers. Moreover, Section 172(2)(xvi) of the Act leaves the adjudication of plea of fraud to the sole competence of the civil courts.

·?????Baksh could, therefore, only have challenged the Mutation before the civil Courts.

Ancillary Issue No. 1: Whether R2/9 are bona fide purchasers??

Held: R2/9 are not bona fide purchasers as they had notice of the fact that of the dispute related to the Mutation as they assisted Baksh in pursuing the appeal before the DDRO as evident from statement of DW-1 (respondent).

Ancillary Issue No. 2: Whether Baksh was in good physical and mental health (to make the Mutation)?

Held: Baksh was in good physical and mental health to make the Mutation as the Muhammad Ajmal and Wahid Bakhsh (Patwaris) who witnessed the Mutation not only supported the sale but also deposed that Baksh was in physical and mental health.

This case brief has been prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice and is not intended to and does not create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between the reader and the author.

The information provided herein may not be republished, sold, relied on, or be used, in any form, without the written consent of the author.

The judgment of the Supreme Court may be obtained from the following link: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.a._346_2020.pdf