Legal Advice on Mutation in Pakistani Law

Understanding Mutation in Pakistani law

Mutation is a vital legal process in land law in Pakistan that validates property ownership and updates land records in Pakistan. Property owners must understand the significance of mutation and ensure their ownership rights are duly recorded in official records. At Josh and Mak International, we provide expert legal assistance and guidance throughout the mutation process, ensuring that our clients’ interests are protected and their property transactions are conducted with accuracy and efficiency. If you require any support or advice related to mutation or other property matters, please contact our team of dedicated professionals at [email protected]

Mutation in Pakistan Law

Mutation is a critical concept in land law that plays a significant role in determining property ownership and rights in Pakistan. At Josh and Mak International, we understand the complexities of land transactions and are committed to providing valuable guidance to property owners. In this article, we will delve into the concept of mutation, its importance, and the process involved in obtaining a mutation certificate in Pakistan.

What is Mutation in Land Law?

Mutation, also known as “Intiqal” or “Fard Badar,” refers to the change in ownership or title of a property concerning revenue records. It is an essential legal process through which the ownership rights of a property are transferred or updated in official land records maintained by the Revenue Department or local government authorities. Mutation serves as proof of possession, and once a mutation entry is made, it validates the ownership status of the property.

Importance of Mutation:

Mutation is crucial for several reasons:

Legal Recognition: Mutation provides legal recognition of changes in property ownership, ensuring that the rightful owner is recorded in official land records.
Tax Assessment: Mutation plays a significant role in determining property taxes and charges levied by the government. It helps assess the property’s value and facilitates the collection of property taxes.
Land Ownership: Without a valid mutation entry, property owners may face challenges in asserting their ownership rights in case of disputes or conflicts.
Land Record Maintenance: Mutation maintains an accurate and up-to-date land register, enabling the government to monitor property transactions and prevent fraudulent activities.

The Process of Obtaining Mutation Certificate:

Obtaining a mutation certificate involves several steps and is subject to specific regulations in different regions of Pakistan. Here is a general outline of the process:

Application Submission: The property owner or their legal representative must submit an application for mutation to the relevant Tehsildar or Patwari. The application should include details such as the property’s location, description, and the reason for the mutation request (e.g., transfer of ownership, inheritance, sale, etc.).
Verification and Field Inspection: After receiving the application, the Revenue Department initiates the verification process. A field inspection is conducted to verify the details provided in the application and to assess the property’s physical existence.
Public Notice: In some cases, the Tehsildar or Patwari may issue a public notice regarding the mutation application to invite objections from the public or concerned parties.
No Objection Certificate (NOC): If no objections are raised during the public notice period, the Tehsildar or Patwari issues a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the mutation.
Approval and Record Entry: Once the application is approved, the mutation entry is made in the land records, reflecting the updated ownership details.
Issuance of Mutation Certificate: Upon successful completion of the process, the property owner is issued a mutation certificate as evidence of the updated ownership status.

Challenges and Legal Assistance:

While the mutation process is crucial for property owners, it can sometimes be complex and time-consuming. Delays, errors, or disputes may arise during the process, impacting the property owner’s rights and interests. In such cases, seeking legal assistance from experienced property lawyers can help navigate the complexities, resolve disputes, and expedite the mutation process.

Mutation in the Context of Sale and Purchase of Land

Mutation is a crucial process in the context of sale and purchase of land in Pakistan. It involves the change of ownership or transfer of rights to a new person, replacing the previous right holder in the land records, especially in the Jamabandi (land revenue record). At Josh and Mak International, we understand the significance of mutation in property transactions and aim to provide guidance and legal support to ensure secure and transparent dealings for our clients.

Sale and Purchase: A Common Mode of Property Acquisition

Sale-purchase transactions are the most common mode of acquiring ownership rights to land in Pakistan. This can occur through private sales between individuals, allocation by public authorities through allotment, lease agreements, auctions, or balloting processes, among others. Private sales, in particular, require adherence to certain legal principles and formalities to ensure a valid and enforceable transaction.

Key Considerations for Sale-Purchase Transactions:

Formation of Agreement: A private sale transaction must follow the fundamental principles of an ordinary agreement or contract. It typically begins with negotiations between the buyer and seller, leading to the execution of a legally binding agreement.
Voluntary and Free Transaction: The sale and purchase agreement should be entered into freely, without any form of threat, fear, inducement, coercion, or undue influence. Both parties should have the capacity and intention to enter into the transaction willingly.
Preferability of Written Agreements: While verbal or oral agreements can be considered valid under Pakistani law, it is highly recommended to reduce the agreement to writing. Written agreements provide a higher level of clarity, reduce the risk of misunderstandings, and serve as concrete evidence of the agreed-upon terms. Moreover, written agreements should be duly recorded through the official registration or mutation process.

The Significance of Mutation:

Mutation or registration is a critical step in the sale-purchase process. It involves the official recording of the transfer of ownership or rights to the new owner in the land records maintained by the relevant government agency. Mutation serves various purposes, including:

Legal Recognition: Mutation provides legal recognition of the change in ownership, ensuring that the new owner’s rights are officially acknowledged in the land records.
Property Rights and Title: The mutation process establishes the new owner’s rights and title to the land, protecting them against any claims or disputes.
Revenue Assessment: Mutation facilitates the assessment and collection of property taxes and other related charges by the government, ensuring compliance with applicable regulations.
Property Ownership Verification: Mutation entries serve as proof of ownership, enabling potential buyers or interested parties to verify the legitimacy and current status of the property.

Importance of Proper Registration or Mutation:

Under Pakistani law, while verbal agreements may be valid, it is advisable to have the sale-purchase agreement in writing. The written agreement should be properly recorded through the official mutation or registration process. This ensures greater legal certainty, protection against fraud, and validation of the transaction.

Commentary

Attestation of mutation, whether conveying title to the vendee/donee, does not, in itself, confer any title upon the vendee/donee. Such transactions must be independently proven through cogent evidence presented by the beneficiary claiming title thereunder. Entries in revenue records are maintained solely for fiscal purposes. In this case, no independent evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the alleged gift or tamleek made by the donor in favor of the defendants.
The defendants have failed to establish, through independent evidence, the factum of the tamleek of the land in question being made in their favor. Consequently, they have failed to meet the legal burden placed upon them. This principle was affirmed in the case of P L J 2004 Pesh.
Regarding the mutations in question, whether they were for a gift or sale is a pertinent question. In these mutations, the words ‘Hibbs’ and ‘Wahiban’ in the relevant columns were altered to ‘Bai,’ and a sale consideration of Its. 1,000/- was inserted for each mutation, even though the areas covered by them greatly varied. It was correctly noted by the learned High Court that if the parties to the transaction had a change of heart, the revenue authorities should have rejected the mutation for sale, following the recording of such a report in ‘Roznamcha Waqiati,’ as mandated under Section 42 (1) of the West Pakistan Revenue Act, 1967. Subsequently, all formalities required for the completion of the sale transaction should have been carried out before the attestation of the sale mutation. However, no such report was made to the Patwari, nor was any entry recorded in the ‘Roznamcha’ indicating that both parties had agreed to convert the gift transaction into a sale.

In conclusion, it becomes evident that the purpose behind these mutations was to partition the suit land in such a manner that each party would become the owner of a specific Khasra number to the exclusion of others. To achieve this goal, gift mutations were used as a device. This principle was established in PLJ 1996 SC 58.

The burden of proof is a crucial aspect in establishing the existence of a transaction of exchange through mutation. The party relying on such a mutation is obligated to prove both aspects of the transaction. Failure on the part of the party relying on the mutation to discharge this burden seriously undermines the existence of any exchange transaction between the parties. This principle was upheld in PLD 2003 SC 688. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine contentions that two illiterate sisters had been deprived of their land in collusion with the Patwari. The lower courts were criticized for ignoring some key features of the case while upholding the legality of the contested mutation. These features included the absence of any male relatives of the women at the time of attestation of the mutation, identification by a Lambardar from a different village without explanation of his acquaintance with the sisters, conflicting accounts of when the consideration for the sale was paid, and the absence of thumbprints on the mutation register or the relevant page of the Patwari’s Roznamcha Waqiati for the two sisters. This case is discussed in P.L.J. 2002 SC 427.
In cases involving pleas of fraud, deception, and misrepresentation, particularly when dealing with illiterate Pardahnashin ladies and the disposal of their properties, the onus of proof falls on the party who has benefited from the transaction. It is their responsibility to establish the genuineness and bona fides of the document through which the transaction was executed. Furthermore, they must demonstrate that the contents of such documents were fully understood and freely agreed upon by the executant. This legal principle is supported by the case of Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others, as referenced in PLD 1990 SC 642 and 2001 SCMR 1591.

The controversy regarding entitlement to inheritance and the impugned mutation was carefully considered by the Trial Court, taking into account the evidence presented by both parties. The Appellate Court’s decision to disregard the proceedings before the Revenue Officer, claiming that the Trial Court couldn’t consider them, was incorrect. This is especially true considering that the presence and participation of close relatives of the parties were involved, and a statement against the interest of the deceased (his uncle) being of the Shia faith was unchallenged by the plaintiff. This principle is supported by references to PLJ 2003 Lahore 995, 1936 P.C. 60, 1989 CLC 2412, 1989 CLC 1591, 1989 CLC 1712, 1994 CLC 1942, 1990 MLD 2399, 1998 MLD 1857, PLD 1994 SC 291, PLD 1996 SC 267, 1997 SCMR 1139, and 1989 MLD 1013.
Regarding the correction of entries in the Revenue Record, the total area of the land in question was allocated to two allottees respectively, fully utilizing the available land. However, in two entries in Register R.L.II, an additional area was erroneously created and allotted to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner. On the application of the successor-in-interest of the land allottee, the authorities rightly corrected the entries in the Revenue Record. The additional area created in Register R.L.II, which did not exist in reality, needed to be corrected as fictitious entries should not be retained in revenue documents. The burden of proof to establish the correctness of such entries rested on the party in whose favor these entries existed, not on the party challenging their accuracy. This principle is discussed in P L D 1993 Pesh. 127.
In the case of the correction of mutation, it was recommended by the Tehsildar and A.C. that respondents seek a remedy in a competent court, as a change had been made during consolidation proceedings. However, these recommendations were ignored, and the District Collector directed the correction through Sehat Intiqal without providing any reason or hearing the concerned parties. He failed to consider whether such a correction was warranted after the confirmation of the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate. Consequently, due to the petitioners being condemned unheard, the order of the District Collector should be set aside on this ground alone. This case is discussed in PLJ 1992 Revenue 86.
Regarding entries of mutation, it’s important to note that entries not incorporated in the Jamabandi do not carry a presumption of truth. These entries were primarily intended for the collection of land revenue. However, since these entries were prepared by officials in the discharge of their official duties, they are admissible in evidence and should be given due weight depending on the circumstances of each case. The onus to prove the evidential value of such entries falls upon those who benefit from these entries. This legal principle is discussed in 1994 M L D 1269.
The evidentiary value of entries in duly sanctioned mutations is significant. However, if these entries have not yet been incorporated into the record of rights, they do not carry a presumption of truth. The nature of mutation proceedings is summary, primarily intended for recording the collection of land revenue. Nevertheless, mutations are admissible as evidence and their weight depends on the circumstances of each case. To prove the factum of admission as recorded in the entries of mutation, the person relying on such entries must establish admission in accordance with the principles of Qanun e Shahadat applicable to prove admissions. The initial burden of proof regarding a transaction embodied in a mutation rests on the beneficiary of the mutation. This legal principle is supported by references to Nageshar Bakhsh Singh v. Mst. Ganesha AIR 1920 PC 46, Nirman Singh v. Thakur Lai Rudra Partab AIR 1926 PC 100, Wali Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh AIR 1930 PC 91, Gurunath Radhaswami v. Bhimappa PLD 1948 PC 123, Abdul Karim v. Fazal Muhammad Shah PLD 1967 SC 411, Habibur Rehman and another v. Mst. Wahdania and others PLD 1984 SC 424, Khawaja Ammar Hussain v. Muhammad Shabbiruddin Khan PLD 1986 Kar. 74, Muhammad Bakhsh v. Ziaullah and others 1983 SCMR 988, Mst. Hawa v. Muhammad Yousuf and others PLD 1969 Kar. 324, National Bank of Pakistan, Kar. v. Dawood Yousuf Mithani and 2 others PLD 1978 Kar. 42, National Bank of Pakistan v. Mst. Hajra Bai and 2 others PLD 1985 Kar. 431, Karamat Ali and another v. Muhammad Younus Haji and others PLD 1963 SC 191, Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad PLD 1955 FC 38, Pathana v. Mst. Wasai and another PLD 1965 SC 134, Sikandar v. Sultan Muhammad PLD 1974 SC 11, Khera Din and 6 others v. Taza Din and 46 others 1968 SCMR 1027, The Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur v. Imam Bukhsh 1970 SCMR 465, Muhammad Hussain and others v. Ahmad Khan and another 1971 SCMR 296, Azhar Saleem v. Muhammad Anwar Khan and others 1974 SCMR 484, Haji Noor Muhammad v. Ghulam Masih Gill PLD 1965 BJl, Muhammad Amin and others v. Mian Muhammad PLD 1970 BJ 5, Bhagoji v.. Bapuji (1888) 13 Born. 75, Gangabai v. Fakirgowadda AIR 1930 PC 93, Gurunath Radhaswami v. Bhimappa AIR 1948 PC 210, Mst. Aisha Bibi and others v. Muhammad and others PLD 1957 Lah. 371, Muhammad and others v. Sardul PLD 1965 Lah. 472, and Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmam and 10 others 1992 SCMR 1832.
Regarding the gift by deaf and dumb persons, one of the petitioners was produced in court as per the court’s directive. However, he was unable to respond to questions posed by the court, and no response was elicited even when he was presented with a paper containing Urdu writing. This petitioner could only understand simple signs connoting basic actions like eating and drinking water. As for the other petitioner, who was not produced, it is presumed that his condition might be even worse. Given the petitioners’ inability to understand or communicate through spoken or written words, questions arise regarding their comprehension of complex matters like ownership, property, and gift. At the time of the attestation of the mutation, the Revenue Officer found that the parties had accepted the fact of the land’s alienation. However, it is held that both petitioners, being unable to speak or express themselves, fail to meet the provisions of Section 42(2)(7) and (8) of the Land Revenue Act. This case is discussed in PLJ 1993 Revenue 18.
In a case involving a gift mutation, where the suit-land was transferred in favor of the defendant by her husband through a gift mutation attested on 25-1-1932, the plaintiffs, who were legal heirs of one of the daughters of the donor, challenged the mutation in a civil suit filed on 31-7-1984. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was entitled only to a portion of the suit property, specifically a 1/8th share. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The validity of this decision was examined, and it was determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. The Appellate Court had properly assessed the evidence, and the inference drawn from such evidence was legally sound. As a result, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, and the High Court declined to interfere with it. This case is reported in 2002 MLD 500.
Inheritance: The plaintiff, claiming to be the sole legal heir and brother entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased, challenged the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favor of the defendants as the daughters of the deceased, to the extent of a 2/3rd share, as void and ineffective against his rights. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ mother was previously married to one MD son of GM, who had passed away in India before partition, and the defendants were born from this marriage in India. Subsequently, the defendants’ mother married the plaintiff’s brother (deceased), namely MD son of ID. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. This decision was upheld by the High Court in revision. The validity of this case hinges on the plaintiffs’ ability to prove that the defendants were indeed the daughters of the said MD son of GM, with whom their mother had married in India. Both the lower courts gave significant weight to the defendants’ evidence, considering it more relevant compared to the plaintiff’s evidence, and correctly found that the defendants were the daughters of the deceased. The Appellate Court appropriately appreciated and believed the evidence presented by two witnesses for the defendants, who hailed from the same village where the marriage of the defendants’ mother had taken place with the MD son of ID. The defendants had also provided copies of Nikahnamas and identity cards to establish their relationship with MD, the brother of the plaintiff. The copy of Nikahnama produced did not require additional witnesses to prove its authenticity. Furthermore, the inheritance mutation had been sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in a ‘Jalsa Aam’ after verifying that the defendants were indeed the daughters of the deceased MD. The Lambardar, in whose presence the mutation was attested, supported the defendants’ version. Additionally, the plaintiff had not challenged the inheritance mutation through the revenue hierarchy, as per the available legal remedy. Therefore, the plaintiff could not identify any legal flaw in the impugned judgment that would justify Supreme Court interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. This case is supported by the reference to 1992 SCMR 1520 and 2002 SCMR 1408.
Mortgage of land against a loan: It is noteworthy that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, during his lifetime, had raised a plea of fraud in a civil court. However, his suit was dismissed after his death. His thumbprints on various documents were not denied, but the plea of fraud is being emphasized to evade his liability. Additionally, his blindness has been stressed, although no such evidence is on record. It is important to understand that the attestation of mutation is a summary proceeding, and intricate and complex questions of law and fact cannot be inquired into by the attesting Revenue Officer. Furthermore, the mutation has been correctly entered and attested. As a result, the petition was dismissed. This case is discussed in PLJ 1992 Revenue 7.
Mutation: The sanctioning of mutation or reporting of an oral gift to Revenue Authorities can be a strong circumstance supporting the transaction of gift. This principle is established in 2004 C L C 33. It’s essential to recognize that mutation proceedings are primarily intended for fiscal purposes, specifically for the collection of land revenue. These proceedings are not judicial in nature, where rights and titles to property are determined. This is highlighted in PLJ 2004 Lah. 193.
Mutation by Pardahnashin Ladies: In cases where pleas of fraud, deception, and misrepresentation have been raised by illiterate Pardahnashin ladies in alleged property disposals, the onus lies on the party that benefited from the transaction to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the document through which the transaction was executed. The contents of such documents must have been fully conceived and understood by the executant independently and freely. This legal principle is affirmed by P.L.J. 2002 SC 427. Pardahnashin ladies, in such circumstances, often deny sales and their involvement in mutation proceedings. If evidence provided by beneficiaries in the record is unsatisfactory or incredible, it cannot be given credence. Mutation proceedings, where two ladies have denied their participation, not only violate S. 42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, but are also considered false and fictitious. Therefore, such mutations are illegal, and any structure built upon them is invalidated. Fraud vitiates even the most solemn transactions, and any transaction based on fraud is void, regardless of the statute of limitations. This is evident from P.L.J. 2002 SC 427.
Mutation confers no title: Once a mutation is challenged, the party that relies on such mutation must revert to the original transaction to prove the existence of that transaction, which resulted in the entry or attestation of the disputed mutation. Mutations do not confer title; they are merely evidence of some original transaction between the parties before the entry of the mutation. Therefore, the person relying on the mutation has the burden of proving the transaction, as it has been consistently alleged by them. This legal principle is reiterated in PLD 2003 SC 688.
Mutation of exchange, Requirements: Mere entry of Roznamcha Waqiati alone is not the only requirement of S. 42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967; numerous steps are also necessarily taken. This principle is established in PLD 2003 SC 688.
Mutation register: The mutation register is a document forming part of the official record. Certified copies of official records are admissible in evidence. The party seeking to challenge the truth or genuineness of the contents of such documents bears the burden of proof. In cases where the original register cannot be produced by the Authority, the production of certified copies by the affected person is considered admissible evidence. This principle is supported by 1986 M L D 979.
Mutation, attestation of: The Lambardar who was supposed to identify the transferors regarding the land had to be from the concerned village, not from the Patwar circle, which includes numerous villages where people are not acquainted with those of other villages. The identification by a Lambardar from an unrelated village raises doubts about the nature of the transaction. This principle is illustrated in PLD 2003 SC 688. In the case of illiterate Pardahnashin ladies, their total land was mutated without their knowledge. They strongly denied the sale and any involvement before the Revenue Officer or the receipt of any sale consideration. Instead of presenting the Lambardar of the concerned village to witness the mutations, the Lambardar of another village was brought in, without explaining how he knew the Pardahnashin ladies. Moreover, neither the register of mutations nor the mutation itself bore the thumbprints of the two ladies, allegedly identified by the Lambardar from another village. The Revenue Officer, while attesting the mutations, did not insist on the presence of male relatives of the ladies who could identify them, as required by S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. In these circumstances, the beneficiary party had to establish with strong and reliable evidence that the disputed mutations were genuine, bona fide, and entered voluntarily and freely by the executants. The evidence provided by the beneficiaries in the record was not only unsatisfactory but also incredible, making it unreliable. The Pardahnashin ladies were not party to the mutations and were kept entirely unaware of the transactions. Fictitious mutations were attested with the connivance of the Revenue Staff. Consequently, the mutation proceedings, where the two ladies denied their participation, not only violated S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, but were also false and fictitious. In such cases, fraud vitiates even the most solemn transactions, rendering any transaction based on fraud void. Regardless of the bar of limitation, the matter could be considered on its merits to prevent the perpetuation of fraud. This is evident from PLD 2001 SCMR 1591.
Mutation, the legality of: Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the contentions that two illiterate women had been deprived of their land in collusion with the Patwari, and the lower courts had ignored some crucial aspects of the case while upholding the legality of the impugned mutation. At the time of the mutation’s attestation, none of the male relatives of the women were present. They were alleged to have been identified by a person who was the Lambardar of a different village, and it was not explained how he knew the two women residing in a different village. According to one of the vendees who appeared on behalf of other vendees at the trial, consideration for the sale was paid before the Tehsildar, while the attesting officer denied this. Additionally, neither the mutation register nor the relevant page of the Patwari’s Roznamcha Waqiati bore the thumbprints of the two women. This case raises concerns about the legality of the mutation process and its potential irregularities. This is discussed in PLD 2001 SCMR 1591.
Proof of Mutation attestation: The key individuals involved in the attestation of mutations are the Patwari Halqa responsible for entering the mutation and the Revenue Officer who attests it. However, in this case, neither of these functionaries was produced and examined in court. As a result, the mutation in question cannot be considered as proven. This principle is highlighted in PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688.
Purpose of Mutation: Mutation proceedings primarily serve fiscal purposes related to the collection of land revenue. They are not judicial proceedings designed to determine the right and title of property. Mutation proceedings are of a summary nature, and the entries made therein are admissible under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. This is explained in PLJ 2004 Lahore 193.
Reasonableness of Transaction of Exchange: In cases where an exchange of property occurs, it is typically motivated by specific material considerations that influence the parties involved. In the present case, the appellants did not possess any property in the relevant village that could justify the consolidation of land or have any substantial relationship with that village that might necessitate migration. Moreover, there was a significant disparity in the valuation of the properties exchanged, with one being significantly more valuable than the other, with a ratio of sixteen to one. This raises questions about the reasonableness of the exchange transaction. Courts have the authority to assess the reasonableness of such transactions, similar to how they would evaluate a gift. The reasonableness of an exchange transaction is a critical and relevant consideration in such cases. This concept is illustrated in PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688.
Requirements of Mutation: Mere entry in the Roznamcha Waqiati (mutation register) is not the sole requirement under Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Several additional steps are necessary for a valid mutation. This is emphasized in PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688.
Sanction of Mutation in Pursuance of Decree: The sanction of a mutation in pursuance of a civil court decree is essentially a formality and does not independently create any rights. Under the law, Revenue Authorities are obligated to update the Revenue Record in accordance with the decree issued by the Civil Court. This principle is elucidated in 2004 S C M R 117.
Sanction of Mutation: In a case where a petitioner applied for the sanction of a mutation for a plot transferred by the Settlement Department in his name, the Assistant Deputy Commissioner (General), despite receiving a re-verification report of the transfer order from the Secretary (Settlement & Rehabilitation), did not sanction the mutation. In such circumstances, the question of the maintainability of a constitutional petition arises. Denial of the petitioner’s rights and the refusal to sanction the mutation, resulting in a delay of approximately three years, conferred upon the petitioner the right to seek relief through a constitutional court by filing a writ petition. Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 grants wide powers to the High Court for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. However, the prerequisite for granting relief under this Article depends on the existence of a person’s fundamental or legal rights and the infringement of such rights. The right that forms the basis of Article 199 of the Constitution is an individual and personal right. A legal right may be a statutory right recognized by the law. An individual can be considered aggrieved when their legal right is denied by someone who has a legal duty related to that right. Therefore, in this case, the writ petition is deemed maintainable. This legal interpretation is provided in PLJ 2000 Lahore 497.
Scope: When a judgment debtor consents before the trial court, they effectively relinquish all their rights in the suit property. The decree-holder, upon depositing the decreed amount, becomes the absolute owner of the suit property. The sanctioning of the mutation is a mere formality, and it is not necessary to execute such a decree. The ownership of the decree-holder remains intact even if the execution petition becomes time-barred or is dismissed by the executing court. This legal perspective is outlined in the case reported in 2010, M. L. D. 187.
Status of Mutation Entries: It’s important to note that mutation entries do not establish ownership titles; they merely carry a rebuttable presumption. In this case, mutation entries were made in the name of Appellant No. 1 in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. During this period, it was proven that the respondents were in possession of the disputed property. Conversely, the appellants failed to substantiate their ownership claim over the disputed property. The respondents presented evidence, referring to settlement records from 1904-5, demonstrating that the government did not have any ownership rights in the said Mauza. Furthermore, the respondents substantiated their contention that the government had acquired land from them for the Quetta-Killa Saifullah Road, for which they were duly compensated. As a result, the issue concerning the reversal of revenue entries was rightly decided in favor of the respondents. Given that fundamental issues in the case have been resolved in favor of the appellant, there is no need to delve into other matters. This is explained in PLJ 1999 Quetta 98
Transaction Embodied in Mutation: The onus of proving a transaction recorded in a mutation rests on the beneficiary of that mutation. There exists a rebuttable presumption in favor of the party for whom the mutation was made, and the burden of proof lies on the beneficiary in whose favor the entry exists, not on a party challenging the accuracy of such entries. It’s crucial to understand that a mutation, in and of itself, neither creates new rights nor extinguishes existing ones unless the transaction or facts upon which it is based are independently proven to have existed. This legal principle is expounded upon in PLJ 2004 Lah. 193.

From the commentary discussed regarding mutation in Pakistani law, several key conclusions can be drawn:

Mutation as a Formality: In Pakistani law, mutation is seen as a formal process primarily intended for fiscal purposes, particularly the collection of land revenue. It is not considered a judicial proceeding for determining the right or title of property. Mutation entries are made in revenue records to reflect changes in ownership, but these entries themselves do not create or extinguish property rights.
Presumption of Truth: Mutation entries carry a rebuttable presumption of truth. Parties challenging these entries bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the recorded transaction or facts are inaccurate or that the mutation was not properly carried out.
Role of Revenue Officers: Revenue Officers play a critical role in the mutation process. They are responsible for attesting mutations and making changes to revenue records. The absence of key functionaries, such as the Patwari Halqa and the Revenue Officer, can raise doubts about the validity of a mutation.
Legal Obligation to Implement Decrees: If a decree is issued by a civil court regarding property rights, revenue authorities are legally obligated to implement the decree by making corresponding changes in revenue records. This obligation exists even if the execution petition for the decree has become time-barred or was dismissed by the executing court.
Importance of Evidence: Evidence is crucial in mutation-related disputes. Parties must provide strong and reliable evidence to support the validity of a mutation or to challenge it. The onus of proving the transaction embodied in a mutation rests on the beneficiary of that mutation.
Natural Justice and Ownership: Violations of principles of natural justice in the mutation process, such as incorrect identification by a Lambardar from an unrelated village, can raise doubts about the legitimacy of the mutation. In cases where possession of property is in dispute, evidence of ownership and historical records can play a crucial role.
Reasonableness of Transactions: In cases involving exchanges of land, the reasonableness of the transaction is considered a relevant consideration. The Court may evaluate whether the exchange was entered into for certain material considerations and whether it was a fair and reasonable transaction.
Legal Remedies: Parties with concerns about mutation entries have legal remedies available, including the option to challenge the entries in court. However, the burden of proof typically rests on the party challenging the correctness of the entries.

Overall, mutation in Pakistani law serves as a mechanism for updating revenue records to reflect changes in property ownership. While mutation entries are significant, they do not themselves establish or extinguish property rights. The process involves legal principles related to evidence, natural justice, and compliance with court decrees.

Below is a review of individual case law on various aspects of mutations

Mutation by Sale (Sale Mutation)

In the case of AHMAD ALI vs. BASHIR AHMED, with citation 2013 YLR 1870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, the issue at hand revolved around a suit for declaration regarding the mutation of sale of a piece of land. The primary contention was whether the mutation of sale was valid and had any legal effect on the ownership rights of the parties involved. This case involved the interpretation of several legal provisions, including Sections 42 and 45 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Articles 117 and 120 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), and Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).

The plaintiffs in this case asserted their ownership and possession of the suit-land while challenging the validity of the entries in the revenue record, claiming that these entries held no legal value. On the other hand, the defendants countered the suit by asserting that they had indeed purchased the suit-land, and the revenue record supported their version of events.

Crucially, both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court rendered concurrent decisions in favor of the defendants. However, the Lahore High Court, in its analysis, recognized that the onus to prove the valid sale of land in favor of the predecessors of the defendants rested squarely on the defendants. To establish a valid sale and the valid attestation of Mutation, they needed to comply with all the conditions specified in Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.

The High Court emphasized that strict compliance with these conditions was imperative, and without it, the Mutation would be considered null and void in the eyes of the law. Furthermore, it clarified that the Mutation in question did not confer any right or title in favor of the predecessors of the defendants, nor did it affect the rights of the plaintiffs.

In cases where the genuineness of a Mutation was contested, the burden of proof lay on the parties relying on the Mutation to demonstrate the actual transaction. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, refused to simply validate the concurrent findings without careful consideration. It held that it was incumbent upon the High Court to rectify the illegality committed by the lower courts when they had ignored the fundamental provisions of the law.

In light of these considerations, the Lahore High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. This decision was reached with due regard to the legal principles and the specific requirements for a valid Mutation under the relevant legislation. Therefore, the revision was allowed in the given circumstances, and the suit was decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

In the case of MOHABTI vs. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, with citation 2016 MLD 1708 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, the central issue under consideration pertained to a Mutation of sale. The plaintiff in this case contended that the alleged sale Mutation in favor of the defendants was illegal and executed without any consideration. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the same decision was subsequently overturned by the Appellate Court. The Lahore High Court examined the validity of these decisions.

A crucial piece of evidence in this case was the statement of the vendor, recorded on 20-09-1999 in an earlier suit brought by the plaintiff. In that statement, the vendor asserted that he was the rightful owner of the suit property. It’s important to note that the alleged sale Mutation, in favor of the defendants, had been attested on 13-09-1995. This presented a critical inconsistency in the timeline of events. If the vendor had indeed sold the suit property to the defendants, it was expected that he would have mentioned this sale in his statement recorded on 20-09-1999. However, no such assertion was made.

Furthermore, one of the witnesses to the sale Mutation admitted that he had not affixed his thumb impression before the Tehsildar, nor had he appeared before the attesting officer or the Patwari during the Mutation process. This raised questions about the authenticity and validity of the Mutation.

Intriguingly, the plaintiff in this case was the son of the vendor, and it was revealed that he had become estranged from his father, divorced his mother, and began living with the defendants. Given these circumstances, it was important for the defendants, as beneficiaries of the disputed Mutation, to substantiate that the Mutation was indeed attested against valid consideration.

Considering these factors, the Lahore High Court found that the Appellate Court’s judgment and decree were flawed. It set aside the impugned judgment and decree issued by the Appellate Court and reinstated the decision of the Trial Court in favor of the plaintiff. In this context, the second appeal was allowed based on the presented circumstances, thereby overturning the previous rulings in the case.

In the case of ABU BAKAR vs. Mst. KHAYBER JAN, with citation 2014 YLR 178 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT, the central issue revolved around a suit for declaration concerning a Sale mutation. The plaintiff, in this case, claimed ownership and possession of the suit property, while the defendant contended that he had acquired the land through a Sale mutation. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but it was subsequently remanded by the Appellate Court. The Lahore High Court examined the validity of these decisions and the burden of proof regarding the Sale transaction, especially when it involved a pardanasheen lady.

The court emphasized that when a Sale transaction involved an illiterate, elderly person, a pardanasheen lady, or a female heir of a Muslim, it was crucial for the beneficiary of the transaction to establish its genuineness. The beneficiary needed to provide evidence that the transaction was the result of free and independent advice given to the person parting with the property. In cases like these, the burden of proving fraud rested with the person alleging it. Mere assertion in pleadings and evidence could be sufficient to discharge this burden.

In this specific case, the defendant claimed that the Sale mutation was in his favor. However, the defendant did not appear as a witness to prove the execution of the mutation and the payment of the Sale consideration. Additionally, the Tehsildar and Patwari halqa, who could have testified to the preparation and attestation of the mutation, were not produced to confirm that these actions were carried out at the instance of the plaintiff and that she had indeed received the Sale consideration.

The defendant was also expected to produce marginal witnesses of the mutation to confirm that it was executed in their presence. Although the son of the defendant appeared in the witness box as the attorney of his father, he did not provide any explanation for his father’s absence as a witness.

The Trial Court had not adequately considered these critical factors when reaching its decision. The Appellate Court rightly observed that the findings of the Trial Court were ambiguous, and the evidence and material highlighted in the record were not adequately discussed. The court also highlighted the importance of discussing the custom of the year 1964 regarding obtaining signatures/thumb-marks on mutations.

Ultimately, the defendant failed to establish the legitimacy of the Sale mutation, and no jurisdictional defects in the Appellate Court’s judgment were identified. The goal of the administration of justice was to resolve disputed issues on merit, and in this case, the revision petition was dismissed given the circumstances.

Syed IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs. Mst. KALSOOM BIBI (2014 YLR 359 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

In this case, the dispute centered around a Sale mutation, with the plaintiffs contending that the mutation was fictitious, bogus, and executed without consideration. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the Lahore High Court examined the validity of these decisions.

Crucially, the court found that the payment of Sale consideration and the valid attestation of the mutation had been substantiated through the examination of one of the vendors, marginal witnesses, and revenue officials, including the Patwari halqa, Tehsildar, and Girdawar circle. The marginal witnesses positively identified the transferors and suggested that the transaction had been conducted properly, with the mutation validly attested. The attesting officer of the mutation also supported the marginal witnesses’ version of events.

The court emphasized that the defendant had successfully proven the legitimacy of the mutation through independent and reliable evidence, thereby invalidating the mere allegations of the plaintiffs. It stressed that the mere assertion that the beneficiary (defendant) had to prove the mutation could not absolve the plaintiff from their initial burden of proving fraud.

While acknowledging that entries in the mutation’s register were not conclusive, the court underscored that the evidence presented in support of these entries was sufficient to discharge the burden on the beneficiary. The court further noted that the sole statement of the plaintiff’s attorney, departing from the pleadings, was not adequate to establish fraud. To establish fraud, it was necessary to plead it in the pleadings and prove it through reliable evidence, which was lacking in this case.

In conclusion, the plaintiff failed to substantiate their case, and the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were perceived as flawed and perverse. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the judgments and decrees of both lower courts were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit.

LUTFULLAH vs. MUBARAK SHAH (2014 YLR 956 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

In this case, the issue pertained to a Sale mutation, with the plaintiffs asserting that they had purchased the property in question in 1935. However, they were never put in possession of the property. Additionally, the predecessors of the plaintiffs had not initiated any legal action during their lifetime. The mutation in favor of the defendants was based on partition proceedings of the total khata.

The plaintiffs had not challenged the partition proceedings in the revenue hierarchy. Furthermore, the suit was filed in 2007 when the property had already been transferred to another person. The plaintiffs failed to provide a plausible explanation for not filing a suit against the new owner who was in possession.

The court noted that the plaintiffs could not justify why they had been out of possession from 1935 until the filing of the suit and did not provide the khata number or Khasra number of the property transferred through the Sale mutation. It was highlighted that both the plaintiffs and their predecessors had remained silent for 72 years, making it difficult to avoid the bar of limitation.

Consequently, the court ruled that remedies in time-barred matters could not be granted. The findings of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court were found to be based on a correct appreciation of the material presented in the case. Therefore, the revision was dismissed.

Fayyaz Mahmood Khan vs. Haji Abdul Rehman (2015 YLR 411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE)

In this case, a dispute arose over a Sale mutation. The plaintiffs contended that the suit land was allotted to the defendants, who subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the land to the plaintiffs. Registered documents, including the agreement to sell and a power of attorney, were executed to this effect. However, the mutation was later canceled by the Assistant Commissioner. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Appellate Court dismissed it.

The Lahore High Court reviewed the case and found that the power of attorney was irrevocable and contained mention of the agreement to sell. Notably, the defendants had never challenged these documents in any forum through a suit or other proceedings. Registered documents enjoy a presumption of correctness, and the plaintiffs had successfully proven the authenticity of these documents. No evidence to rebut the validity of these documents was available on the record.

Furthermore, the mutation of Sale for the suit property was sanctioned in favor of the plaintiffs and was incorporated in the revenue record. The Assistant Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate upon the agreement to sell or the power of attorney and cancel the mutation. Importantly, no issue regarding the bar of the suit under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, had been raised earlier and was first raised before the High Court. This bar did not apply to the agreement to sell.

The court ruled that the conditions of tenancy would no longer be applicable after the completion of the Sale, and the allottee would become the owner of the land. The court emphasized that one cannot benefit from their own fault, and the defendants could not use the conditions for canceling the Sale when they had sold the land in violation of the Sale deed.

The findings of the Trial Court regarding the genuineness of the documents were found to be exhaustive and in accordance with the law. The Appellate Court had not provided any reason for setting aside the factual findings of the Trial Court, and its findings were against the evidence on record. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court were set aside, and those of the Trial Court were restored. The appeal was accepted in these circumstances.

Nadeem Khan vs. Noureen Sultan (2016 MLD 1267 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

In this case, the dispute revolved around a Sale mutation. The plaintiff argued that they had not appeared before the Revenue officer nor received the consideration for the alleged Sale amount. The defendants claimed to have purchased the suit property from the plaintiff. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the defendants had not produced the attesting witness of the impugned mutation.

The defendants subsequently moved an application before the Appellate Court to produce additional evidence, specifically the Revenue Officer who had attested the mutation. However, this application was dismissed. The Peshawar High Court reviewed the case and considered the scope of producing additional evidence in appellate court proceedings.

The court noted that the Appellate Court had the power to allow the production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, if the Trial Court had refused to admit such evidence when it ought to have been admitted. In this case, the defendants were bound to produce evidence to prove the presence of the plaintiff and her signatures on the Sale mutation. The testimony of the Revenue Officer was deemed essential for a proper adjudication of the case.

The defendants had only sought the relief of allowing them to call the Revenue Officer as a witness, and the impugned order by the Appellate Court was set aside. The application for the production of additional evidence was allowed, and the revision was accepted accordingly.

Kamaluddin vs. Mst. Sardaran (2016 CLCN 23 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

In this case, a suit for a mandatory injunction was filed concerning a Sale mutation. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit property from the defendants but alleged that the entire property was not entered in the jamabandi. The defendants claimed a set-off of the mutation on the grounds that one of the defendants was a minor. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court dismissed the suit.

The Peshawar High Court reviewed the case and assessed the limitation to challenge the document, particularly the mutation. The court noted that the impugned mutation had not been challenged by the defendants. Although the defendant in question had not been shown as a minor in the mutation, from his appearance, he seemed to be a minor.

The court emphasized that the set-off allegedly claimed would not amount to a separate suit, as it was specifically related to the suit for recoveries. The plaintiffs had failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the plea of set-off had been proven by the defendants through positive evidence.

The minor defendant had made a general statement that the mutation was bogus, but no specific details of fraud were provided. The written statement was silent about the particulars of fraud. Long-standing entries in the jamabandi were presumed to be true and correct, and convincing corroborative evidence was required to annul such entries, which was lacking in this case.

The beneficiary of the mutation was required to prove the contents of the mutation by producing the marginal witnesses and attesting officer, including the Patwari halqa. Once the entries of the mutation were incorporated into the jamabandi, the burden to prove the mutation shifted to the defendant to rebut these entries.

Limitation had been provided to challenge documents, including mutations, to eliminate fraud. Since the entries made in the jamabandi in 1971 had not been challenged by the defendants, and the claim of set-off had been made in the plaintiffs’ suit filed in 1997, the defendants were bound to challenge the entries made in the jamabandi after the institution of the suit by the plaintiff.

The court concluded that the defendants had sold the property in question to the plaintiffs by concealing facts. The plaintiffs had approached the revenue authorities for the incorporation of the mutation only for half of the property, and they were entitled to be compensated through other property owned by the defendants.

Sufficient evidence was available on record to grant a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, excluding the share of the minor defendant. The plaintiffs were entitled to a decree to the extent of their share, excluding the share of the minor, and the suit was decreed accordingly. The revision petition was partly accepted.

Based on the cases above regarding mutations by sale in Pakistani law, several key findings and legal principles related to Sale mutations can be identified:

Presumption of Validity: Registered documents, including Sale mutations, enjoy a presumption of correctness in Pakistani law. This means that such documents are presumed to be genuine and valid unless proven otherwise. Parties challenging the validity of a Sale mutation bear the burden of proof.
Production of Evidence: When challenging the validity of a Sale mutation, it is essential to produce convincing and corroborative evidence to prove that the mutation is not genuine or was executed under duress, fraud, or other unlawful circumstances.
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the party challenging the Sale mutation. They must provide sufficient and reliable evidence to substantiate their claims. Failure to do so may result in the presumption of validity prevailing.
Authority to Cancel Mutation: Administrative officials, such as Assistant Commissioners, may not have the authority to adjudicate on the validity of agreements to sell or powers of attorney related to property transactions. The cancellation of a Sale mutation may be outside their jurisdiction.
Limitation: There is a limitation period to challenge documents, including mutations. This limitation is in place to discourage fraudulent or belated claims. Failure to challenge a mutation within the specified time may result in the claim being time-barred.
Specific Relief Act: Provisions of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) may come into play when seeking remedies related to Sale mutations. This act provides a legal framework for obtaining specific performance of contracts, including agreements to sell.
Production of Additional Evidence: Appellate courts in Pakistan may allow the production of additional evidence if the Trial Court refused to admit such evidence, and if it is deemed essential for proper adjudication. This can include the testimony of relevant witnesses or documents that were not presented during the trial.
Rebuttal of Registered Documents: To challenge the validity of registered Sale documents, such as agreements to sell or mutations, specific evidence and arguments must be provided. General assertions of fraud or invalidity without supporting evidence are unlikely to succeed.
Mutation in Revenue Records: Once a Sale mutation is incorporated into the revenue records (jamabandi), it becomes part and parcel of the property’s official record. The burden may shift to the party challenging the mutation to prove its invalidity.
Benefit of Own Fault: Parties who have themselves violated conditions or legal requirements related to property transactions may not be able to use those violations as a basis for canceling a Sale mutation.

These findings underscore the importance of providing strong and substantiated evidence when challenging the validity of Sale mutations in Pakistani law. Additionally, they highlight the significance of adhering to legal procedures and time limitations in property-related disputes. It’s crucial for parties involved in such disputes to seek legal advice and representation to navigate the complexities of property transactions and mutations effectively.

Case on Exchange Mutation

In the case of Mst. Rashida Begum vs. Muhammad Din (2017 CLCN 32 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE), the petitioner, Mst. Rashida Begum, filed a constitutional petition challenging the validity of an Exchange mutation related to the transfer of property. The primary contention raised by the petitioner was that the transfer of property through the Exchange mutation was legally flawed as it violated prevailing laws, specifically Martial Law Regulations.

The petitioner argued that the Patwari, a revenue official, had incorrectly reported in the Exchange mutation that the petitioner had total ownership of the property involved in the exchange. This report was made in an attempt to demonstrate that the Exchange mutation was not in violation of the aforementioned law.

The Lahore High Court, in its judgment, considered several key legal principles:

Benefit of One’s Own Wrong: The court emphasized the legal principle that no one can benefit from their own wrong. In this context, it meant that if the Patwari had incorrectly mentioned the petitioner’s total ownership in the Exchange mutation in order to secure its sanction, the petitioner was a party to those proceedings. Therefore, any benefit derived from the Exchange mutation, which was entered and sanctioned based on that report, could not be claimed by the petitioner if it was obtained through incorrect or misleading information.
Presumption of Involvement: The court presumed that the petitioner was aware of the endorsement made by the Patwari and could not disassociate themselves from it, particularly when the endorsement was made to secure the sanction of the Exchange mutation.

In light of these considerations, the Lahore High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, concluding that the petitioner could not challenge the Exchange mutation on the grounds that it violated the law, as the petitioner had played a role in the process that led to its sanction. This case underscores the legal principle that individuals cannot seek to benefit from actions or endorsements that they themselves were involved in, even if those actions were later found to be legally flawed.

A review of cases on Cancellation of Mutation

In the case of Ashiq Muhammad vs. Mst. Suhagan, the issue at hand revolved around the limitation for filing a suit for the declaration and cancellation of Mutation entries. The respondent had challenged Mutation entries dating back to 1959 and 1966 through a suit filed in 1996. The critical question was whether the delay in filing the suit was justifiable. While the respondent had claimed in the plaint that she became aware of the impugned entries a year before filing the suit, no substantive justification for this delay was provided by the respondent or her witnesses during their depositions. This inordinate delay in filing the suit led to the conclusion that the suit was hopelessly barred by time, and as a result, the appeal was allowed. (Citation: 2023 SCMR 1171)

In the same case, the issue of an oral lease (mustajri) agreement was raised. The respondent claimed to have leased out the subject property to the appellant through an oral lease agreement, with regular lease payments. However, during cross-examination, the respondent admitted that she had no proof or receipt to demonstrate that any lease money had been paid by the appellant. The evidence presented by the respondent to establish the lease agreement was also questionable, as she had asserted that she herself entered into the lease agreement, contradicting her witness’s statement that the terms of the lease were settled in their presence. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent was rightly dismissed, and the appeal was allowed. (Citation: 2023 SCMR 1171)

In the case of Abdul Ghafoor vs. Khair Bibi before the Quetta High Court in Balochistan, the dispute centered on the essentials of a gift and the proof of its existence in relation to the cancellation/rectification of Mutation entries. The respondent (pardanashin lady) denied making a gift and transferring her share to the brother of her predecessor-in-interest (the alleged donee). The judgments were in favor of the plaintiff, emphasizing that the witnesses of the defendant failed to provide critical information such as the date/year of the gift deed, where it was prepared, and in whose presence possession was handed over to the alleged donee. The absence of these key details, coupled with the lack of witnesses to the transfer/Mutation, led to the conclusion that the essential elements of a gift were missing, and the burden of proving a valid gift rested with the beneficiary (defendant), which they failed to discharge. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 YLR 180)

In the case of Bibi Zulahkha (Widow) vs. Mst. Naik Murgha, the matter involved a suit for declaration, cancellation of Mutation entries, and permanent injunction concerning a property dispute. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had dismissed the suit. The primary issue in this case was the limitation for filing the suit. The transfer Mutation in question had taken place in 1948, and the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to prove that it was prepared behind their back. The plaintiffs’ silence for approximately sixty years without any valid reason or justification raised questions about the delay in filing the suit. As the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs to establish that their case was within the statutory limitation period, the Court upheld the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, ultimately dismissing the revision petition. (Citation: 2023 MLD 588)

In the case of Bahadur Khan vs. Muhammad Anwar, the dispute centered on the cancellation of Mutation entries, declaration, and injunction related to the Mutation of inheritance. The respondents/plaintiffs claimed that the deceased father of the petitioners/defendants had wrongly excluded them from inheriting their mother’s property. The suit was decreed in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. However, the High Court set aside these judgments, emphasizing that the suit was filed after an unexplained delay of more than 30 years from the demise of the predecessor-in-interest and over 20 years after the demise of the father of the petitioners/defendants. The entry in the revenue record had not been challenged during the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest, and no plausible reason was provided for the delay in taking legal action. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the suit and allowed the revision. (Citation: 2023 MLD 226)

In the case of Muhammad Yar vs. Bibi Gul Seema, the dispute involved a suit for declaration, cancellation of Mutations, and permanent injunction. The plaintiff contended that, as the daughter of the alleged donor, she was entitled to her share of the inheritance, but the defendants had fraudulently obtained the properties in their names and sold them to third parties, depriving her and her sisters of their shares. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the appeal was dismissed. However, the validity of the gift Mutation was questioned as the defendants admitted that it did not mention any date, month, or names of witnesses. Moreover, there was no evidence to prove that the donor had appeared before the revenue authority to confirm the oral gift. The discrepancies in the signature of the donor and the absence of essential details in the Mutation further weakened the defendants’ case. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 CLC 433)

In the case of Mst. Hussan Ara (Widow) vs. Mst. Surayya Begum (Deceased), the dispute involved the cancellation of a registered general power of attorney and a Mutation of land transfer. The petitioners challenged the cancellation by revenue authorities, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The Court clarified that the cancellation of a registered document on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation should be challenged in a civil court through a suit for declaration and cancellation of the instrument, invoking the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Revenue officers or revenue courts do not have the authority to examine the authenticity of a registered instrument. The revenue official had exceeded their authority by declaring the registered general power of attorney and Mutation as executed through fraud and misrepresentation. The High Court, in its Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the orders passed by revenue authorities and directed that the question of genuineness, authenticity, and legality of the documents should be determined by a competent civil court. The constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. (Citation: 2023 CLC 663)

In the case of Mst. Kaneeza Bibi vs. Sabir Hussain, the dispute centered around a sale Mutation, and the plaintiff sought its cancellation. The Trial Court decreed the suit, while the Appellate Court dismissed it. The critical issue was the lack of evidence to prove consideration for the sale Mutation. The key witnesses, as required by Punjab Land Revenue Act, were not present when the revenue officer obtained the signatures of the parties, and the revenue officer did not appear to depose in favor of the Mutation or face cross-examination. Additionally, the alleged witnesses to the agreement of sale had not seen the seller receiving any payment. The deed writer also admitted that he was not a witness to the payment of consideration. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside, while the Trial Court’s decision was upheld, leading to the allowance of the revision petition. (Citation: 2023 PLD 380)

In the case of Najib Aslam vs. State, the matter involved the possession of evacuee property and the cancellation of a decree. The respondent had obtained land through a Mutation in his name based on a judgment and decree from a Trial Court in 1952. However, the property in question was evacuee land. The High Court determined that after Pakistan’s creation, all evacuee properties abandoned by non-Muslim evacuees vested with the Central Government. This was supported by the Pakistan (Protection of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1948. The bar was imposed on the transfer of any evacuee property after August 1, 1947. Therefore, the land in question belonged to the government, and the respondent had obtained a decree from the Civil Court without involving the necessary parties and without jurisdiction. As a result, the Division Bench directed revenue authorities to take action against the Mutation in favor of the respondent, which was based on a void and inexecutable decree. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Judge in Chambers of the High Court, and the intra-court appeal was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 MLD 1061)

In the case of Muhammad Ayub (Deceased) vs. Hashim Khan (Deceased), the dispute revolved around the specific performance of a sale contract. The subject land was transferred through an oral sale Mutation. The respondents instituted a declaratory suit for confirmation of their sale contract of 1967 and the cancellation of the oral sale Mutation of 1990. After a series of legal actions, the present “fresh suit” was filed more than three decades after the alleged sale contract of 1967. The petitioners argued that the suit was time-barred and that the decree for possession had already been granted to them, rendering the alleged sale agreement redundant. The Court noted that the basic onus to prove the sale contract was on the respondents. The witnesses to the sale had passed away, and the evidence was not sufficient to prove the sale transaction. The Court concluded that the suit was time-barred and that the respondents had not presented a prima facie case. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 CLC 504)

In the case of Maqbool Ahmed Solangi vs. Board of Revenue, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction in a suit for cancellation of documents, declaration, and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed ownership of a portion of a plot, while the defendants had acquired title in 2012. The Court noted that the defendants were bona fide purchasers of the property and that the plaintiff did not have a prima facie case. Additionally, the balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss did not favor the plaintiff. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 YLR 1431)

In the case of Mst. Shahida Parveen vs. Saeed Ahmed, a complex legal situation emerged involving multiple claims over a property. The wife claimed that the property had been gifted to her by her husband, while the husband denied the gift. Simultaneously, a buyer claimed to have purchased the property from the husband. The Trial Court consolidated all three suits and ruled in favor of the buyer, while the other two suits were dismissed. The Lower Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment.

In this case, the Court considered several factors to determine the validity of the claims, including the requirement of delivery of possession. While delivery of possession could be dispensed with in relations between husband and wife, certain other factors needed to be present, such as a registered gift deed or attestation of Mutation. However, in this case, neither a registered deed nor a Mutation in the wife’s name existed. Additionally, the witnesses provided by the wife did not sufficiently prove the delivery of possession.

The High Court declined to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the two lower courts, and the second appeal was dismissed. (Citation: 2023 CLC 838)

In the case of Syed Kausar Ali Shah vs. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah, the dispute involved the principle of acquiescence. The legal heir allowed a third party to create an interest in the property and only challenged it belatedly. The lower courts did not consider the interest created by a property developer before the legal heir objected to the inheritance Mutation. The Court emphasized that depriving the 444 allottees of their valuable property rights without allowing them to be heard would be legally indefensible. Therefore, the Court allowed the petitions for leave to appeal, converting them into appeals, and dismissed the suit filed by the legal heir. (Citation: 2022 SCMR 1558)

In the case of Nasir Ali vs. Muhammad Asghar, the dispute centered around the authenticity of a Mutation document. The impugned document mentioned the names, signatures, and Identity Card (ID) numbers of the parties, marginal witnesses, and the identifying Lambardar. Several witnesses testified, including the Lambardar, Patwari, and Revenue Officer, confirming the authenticity of the Mutation. However, the respondent/plaintiff’s testimony contradicted the evidence provided by these witnesses. The Court found the respondent’s testimony to be based on falsehood and deceptiveness. It also noted that the respondent failed to take any legal action against the alleged fraud by Revenue Officers. The Court concluded that the suit for declaration without claiming the consequential relief of possession and cancellation of the Mutation was not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant’s evidence regarding the transaction was accepted as genuine. (Citation: 2022 SCMR 1054)

In the case of Mst. Parveen (Deceased) vs. Muhammad Pervaiz, the issue revolved around the valuation of a suit for the cancellation of a gift deed. The gift deed did not mention any value. The plaintiffs valued the suit at two hundred rupees for court fee purposes, and three courts accepted this valuation. In such circumstances, the Court held that a petition under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution had to be filed rather than an appeal under Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution, which was in respect of appeals. Therefore, the petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed. (Citation: 2022 SCMR 64)

In the case of Muhammad Sarfaraz vs. Najeebullah, the petitioner’s suit was dismissed while the respondent’s suit was decreed through a consolidated judgment/decree. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate court under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. However, it’s important to note that Order XVII, Rule 3 applies to proceedings of suits, not appeals. The appellate court erroneously dismissed the appeal in default on a date that was not designated as the date of the hearing. The record indicated that notice had not been served upon the appellant. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate court was not in accordance with the law. The revision petition was accepted, and the case was remanded to the appellate court. (Citation: 2022 PLD 43 Quetta High Court)

In the case of Malik Muhammad Ameen vs. Mst. Saeeda Maqbool, the petitioner sought to challenge the title of the landlord through a suit for declaration, cancellation of Mutation entries, and permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed to have purchased a house from the predecessor of the respondents through a sale agreement. However, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of payment or possession. The suit was viewed as an attempt to unlawfully extend his stay in the house based on a fabricated document. Additionally, the petitioner admitted to being a tenant for many years. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner could not challenge the landlord’s title without first surrendering possession. The revision petition was dismissed accordingly. (Citation: 2022 YLR 742 Quetta High Court)

In the case of Ghulam Qadir vs. Jam Ali Akbar, the petitioners claimed ownership of a piece of land dating back to 1908. They alleged that the respondents occupied the land with the collusion of the police and evicted them. However, the statements of the petitioners and their witnesses were contradictory on key aspects of the case, including ownership and possession. The record showed that the settlement of the land was completed in 1969 in favor of the respondents, and the petitioners failed to raise any objections or seek corrections to the revenue record until filing the present suit. The suit was also barred by a 37-year delay. The petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their ownership, possession, or dispossession from the property. Therefore, the Court found the suit to be without merit and dismissed the revision petition. (Citation: 2022 MLD 1547 Quetta High Court)

In the case of Mai Mithan vs. Banda-e-Ali, the dispute involved the authenticity of a gift Mutation. The plaintiff, who was the wife of the defendant, challenged the Mutation through a suit for cancellation. Despite being married, their relationship was strained, and the plaintiff did not identify herself as the defendant’s wife. The Court noted that the defendant failed to prove the gift, including offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. Given the strained relationship between the parties and the lack of evidence regarding the gift, the Court upheld the judgments and decrees passed in favor of the plaintiff by the lower courts. The revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2022 YLR 418 Peshawar High Court)

In a similar case with the same citation, the petitioners attempted to prove the correctness and genuineness of a gift Mutation. However, the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the authenticity of the gift. The witnesses did not have direct knowledge of the donor, and various discrepancies in the testimony and documentation cast doubt on the validity of the gift. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgments and decrees passed in favor of the plaintiff by the lower courts, as the petitioners had not provided the necessary evidence to support their case. The revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2022 YLR 418 Peshawar High Court)

In the case of Allah Wasai vs. Khuda Bukhsh, the plaintiffs had filed separate suits for the declaration and challenged the cancellation of gift Mutations by the Assistant Collector. Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently decreed the suits. However, it was found in the record that the donor was incapable of understanding the events related to the alleged gift and had deprived his daughter of her share. The basic requirements for a valid gift, including offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession, were not detailed in the plaintiffs’ pleadings. As a result, the Assistant Collector’s cancellation of the gift Mutations was deemed appropriate, and the revision petition was accepted. The impugned judgments and decrees were set aside. (Citation: 2022 YLR 1597 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Khuda Bakhsh vs. Province of Punjab, the petitioner sought a declaration of ownership and the deposit of the purchase price at the rate prevailing in 1961. However, both the trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit. The petitioner then sought permission to file additional documents. The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts, as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court also noted that decisions in civil suits between other parties could not be applied to the petitioner’s case, as he failed to prove his own suit with sufficient evidence and could not overcome the hurdle of limitation. The revision petition was dismissed. (Citation: 2022 YLR 1482 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Sardar Ali vs. Abdul Ghafoor, the dispute revolved around a suit for specific performance and objections raised during the execution of a sale deed. The executing court had accepted the objection petition and canceled the sale deed without framing issues or recording evidence. However, the petitioner had already obtained the execution of the sale deed and possession of the property. The High Court found that there were factual controversies regarding title and other issues that required evidence to be resolved. The executing court had acted summarily without recording necessary evidence. Therefore, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The execution petition, objection petition, and application for setting aside the sale deed were deemed pending before the executing court. (Citation: 2022 CLC 1925 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Nazar Abbas vs. Additional District Judge, the petitioner and respondent had filed separate suits that were consolidated due to similar issues. Both parties had presented their evidence, and the respondent had closed her evidence in rebuttal. Later, the respondent produced three witnesses, but the trial court refused to record their evidence based on an objection by the petitioner. The revisional court accepted the revision and declared that the right of rebuttal evidence for the respondent in the second suit was still open. The High Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that when similar issues arise in different suits, consolidation is appropriate, and the suits should be decided conjointly based on consolidated trials. In this case, the respondent had already availed herself of the right to produce affirmative and rebuttal evidence in both suits, and reopening the case for additional rebuttal evidence was not warranted. (Citation: 2022 MLD 1784 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Tufail Muhammad vs. Nazar Hussain, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement to sell and sought the cancellation of a Mutation against the defendants. One of the defendants had a Mutation in his favor, and he filed a suit for possession of the property based on that Mutation. The plaintiff’s suit was concurrently decreed, but the High Court found that the plaintiff had failed to plead and prove essential details of the alleged oral agreement, such as the time, date, and place of the transaction, the names of witnesses, and receipts for the sale consideration. Additionally, the suit was filed in 2002 for an agreement dating back to 1975, making it barred by limitation. The defendant’s Mutation had been duly entered, sanctioned, and incorporated into the revenue record. As such, the suit filed by the defendant was decreed. (Citation: 2022 MLD 1745 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Mst. Anwar Mai vs. Ghulam Sarwar, the petitioner had initially filed a suit during her father’s lifetime, claiming ownership and seeking specific performance. After her father’s demise, she filed a second suit for inheritance and the cancellation of a Mutation. Both suits were consolidated and concurrently dismissed. The petitioner argued that her father had not admitted the impugned Mutation, and no limitation applied in matters of inheritance. However, the courts found significant contradictions in her evidence, rendering her depositions untrustworthy. It was noted that the petitioner’s claim in both suits was based on contradictory assertions. The High Court held that the petitioner’s evidence lacked credibility, and the suit was indeed barred by limitation. (Citation: 2022 MLD 1112 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Suba vs. Mst. Halima Bibi, the respondent filed a suit for inheritance and the cancellation of a sale deed and Mutations. During the pendency of her appeal, she withdrew the suit with permission to file a fresh suit, which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioner argued that the later suit was barred by time as the cause of action had arisen before the first suit was instituted. The respondent contended that the second suit was within time, and the period consumed in the earlier suit should not be counted. The High Court held that the respondent had specifically mentioned in her first suit that the cause of action had arisen one and a half months before its institution. As the second suit was filed after a period of nine years from the previous suit, it was barred by limitation. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. (Citation: 2022 MLD 929 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Liaqat Ali alias Khabar vs. Habibullah, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of Mutation entry, and injunction, while the respondents filed a separate suit for cancellation, possession, and mesne profits. Both suits were consolidated, and the respondents’ suit was decreed while the petitioners’ suit was dismissed. The petitioners argued that the respondents’ suit was time-barred, and no mortgage agreement was proven. The High Court found that the respondents had failed to prove the existence of any mortgage agreement, and contradictory evidence cast doubts on their claims. Additionally, the respondents’ suit appeared to be time-barred as they sought the cancellation of the sale deed. The Court allowed the revision petitions accordingly. (Citation: 2022 CLC 1583 Karachi High Court)

It’s important to note that in cases involving the cancellation of a registered instrument or Mutation, the exclusive jurisdiction of a Civil Court is recognized. Revenue authorities cannot grant declarations of ownership when a registered instrument is in existence. This underscores the importance of seeking legal remedies through the appropriate channels, such as the Civil Court, when dealing with matters related to property disputes and registered instruments. (Citation: 2022 CLC 1583 Karachi High Court)

2022 YLR 2059 – High Court Azad Kashmir: This case dealt with the cancellation of a mutation and issues related to family-tree admission. The court found that the mutation was not in accordance with the principles of inheritance and that the respondents failed to prove their relationship with the deceased. The appeal was accepted based on these findings.

2022 MLD 1320 – High Court Azad Kashmir: This case involved the cancellation of entries in the revenue record. The court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The court found that the evidence favored the plaintiffs.

2022 MLD 132 – Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court: In this case, the plaintiff sought the cancellation of a mutation. The court determined that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it involved questions of title. The plaintiff’s claim for partition based on inheritance was upheld.

2021 SCMR 1068 – Supreme Court: This case concerned a dispute over a sale deed and mutation. The plaintiff claimed that the mutation in favor of the defendants was fraudulent. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide valid and reliable evidence to cancel the mutation. The appeal was allowed in favor of the defendants.

2021 CLC 151 – Quetta High Court Balochistan: This case involved a suit for declaration, cancellation of sale deed, and permanent injunction. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the suit was time-barred, and the plaintiff failed to justify the delay in filing the suit.

2021 CLC 37 – Quetta High Court Balochistan: In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation, possession, and permanent injunction. The court found that the civil court had jurisdiction to resolve the issue of title, and the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land.

2021 MLD 1219 – Peshawar High Court: This case involved a suit for declaration and injunction related to a sale transaction. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the lower appellate court, which favored the defendants. The plaintiff failed to prove the sale as alleged.

2021 PLD 159 – Peshawar High Court: This case concerned the cancellation of an inheritance mutation. The court allowed the constitutional petition and directed the trial court to decide the application filed by the petitioner and the bank jointly to determine the date of the respondent’s death.

2021 CLC 1798 – Lahore High Court: This case involved a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation. The court found that the petitioner had accepted the respondent’s claim on oath, and no appeal could be filed from a decree passed with the parties’ consent. The revision petition was dismissed.

2021 MLD 1964 – Lahore High Court: In this case, the plaintiffs sought a declaration and permanent injunction regarding the cancellation of a mutation. The court found that the suit did not contain the basic ingredients of a suit for partition, and the courts below rightly dismissed it.

Case Name: 2021 MLD 608 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH

Opponent: MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Legal Provision: Section 42 of Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 79

Summary:

This case pertained to a suit for the cancellation of a mutation and a declaration. The plaintiff, Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, alleged fraud in a mutation of sale in favor of the defendant, Muhammad Sharif. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit.

Key Points:

The mutations in question contained sale transactions that were considered documents related to financial liability.

The court emphasized that these mutations needed to be proved according to the standards set in Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

The examination of only one marginal witness by the beneficiary (defendant) was deemed insufficient to meet the legal requirements.

Neither the attestation of the mutations nor the sale transactions within them were proven.

The plaintiff successfully demonstrated that the alleged transaction never occurred, and the mutations were manipulated through collusion.

The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court due to misreading/non-reading of evidence and jurisdictional defects. The second appeal was allowed.

Case Name: 2021 MLD 95 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: MUNIR AHMAD

Opponent: ZAFAR IQBAL

Legal Provision: Section 42

Summary:

In this case, the plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration claiming that the defendants had incorporated bogus inheritance mutations in their favor after the death of their uncle and father’s uncle. Both had died without issue. The trial court and appellate court concurrently decreed the suit.

Key Points:

The case revolved around the validity of inheritance mutations.

It was established that only the surviving residuary could inherit the estate of the deceased when the succession was open.

The contesting defendants failed to rebut the oral and documentary evidence and prove the correctness of the mutations incorporated in the revenue record.

The mere oral assertion of the defendants was insufficient to rebut the documentary evidence.

The plaintiffs did not point out any illegality, material irregularity, or misreading/non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments.

The revision petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2021 CLC 584 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: WALAYAT

Opponent: SHAHADAT

Legal Provisions: Section 54 of Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42

Summary:

The plaintiff filed a declaratory suit aiming to cancel a registered sale deed and its implementing mutation, alleging that the suit area was mortgaged to the defendants, and the sale deed was registered within a short time after the attestation of the mortgage mutation. The plaintiff claimed to be illiterate, of advanced age, and seriously ill.

Key Points:

The plaintiff’s illiteracy, advanced age, and serious illness were not disputed.

The burden to prove the contents of the document, in addition to proving its execution and the transaction’s elements, rested on the defendants as beneficiaries.

It was highlighted that for a transaction to be considered a sale, the passing of the price or its promise needed to be contemplated.

Mere registration of the document as a sale deed did not pass title to the beneficiary if there was no proof of sale consideration.

The marginal witnesses of the sale deed and the Deed Writer admitted that the consideration was not paid before them.

The High Court observed that without proof of sale consideration received by the vendor, there was no sale in the eyes of the law.

The revision petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2021 CLC 87 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD SALEEM NASEEM

Opponent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DUNYAPUR

Legal Provisions: Order VI, Rule 17 & Order I, Rule 10

Summary:

The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, and during its pendency, the defendant transferred the suit property to others. Subsequent purchasers were added as parties, and the petitioner sought an amendment to challenge the validity of mutations in favor of subsequent purchasers.

Key Points:

Sub-rule (4) of Order I, Rule 10, provided that once a defendant was added, the plaint could be amended as necessary.

The petitioner was legally entitled to seek permission for an amendment in the plaint to challenge the validity of transactions during the suit.

The revision petition was allowed, and the application under Order VI, Rule 17, was accepted.

Case Name: 2021 CLC 616 (Islamabad)

Parties:

Appellant: ALI AKBAR

Opponent: DAUD AKHTAR

Legal Provisions: Sections 42 & 54

Summary:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming that the mutations were incorporated as sale transactions while the property was intended to be mortgaged. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Appellate Court dismissed it.

Key Points:

The beneficiaries of the mutations were the defendants, and the execution of mutations was not denied by the plaintiff.

The burden of proving the sale transaction incorporated in the mutations did not shift to the defendants.

The plaintiff, a well-educated person, was deemed capable of understanding the contents of the mutations.

It was observed that the plaintiff had not even pleaded the type of mortgage that had been executed.

The plaintiff had also parted with possession of the suit land.

The judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2021 MLD 447 (Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court)

Parties:

Appellant: SHER ZAMAN

Opponent: KARIMULLAH BAIG

Legal Provisions: Sections 42, 54 & 39

Summary:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and cancellation of mutations, alleging that one defendant prepared a fake power of attorney and sold the disputed land to other defendants. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.

Key Points:

The plaintiffs failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence in the Trial Court except the statement of one plaintiff who produced the alleged fake general power of attorney.

The defendants presented reliable and convincing evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims.

There were no misreadings or non-readings of evidence pointed out by the plaintiffs.

The appeal was dismissed.

Case Name: 2020 SCMR 483 (Supreme Court)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (DECEASED)

Opponent: Mst. NOOR BIBI (DECEASED)

Legal Provisions: Sections 42 & 39, Civil Procedure Code, Order I, Rule 10(2)

Summary:

This case involved a suit for the declaration and cancellation of a registered public document or attested mutation. It emphasized the need to involve the Provincial Government and relevant revenue authorities as proper parties to such suits.

Case Name: 2020 CLC 1942 (Quetta High Court Balochistan)

Parties:

Appellant: ABDUL QADEER

Opponent: GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Public Health Engineering

Legal Provision: Article 199

Summary:

The petitioner sought the cancellation of a tender for installing water supply on lands allegedly belonging to him and his forefathers. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to have locus standi as an “aggrieved person” in constitutional jurisdiction cases.

Key Points:

The petitioner was not the owner of the land, and his name was not mentioned in mutation entries.

The petitioner lacked locus standi as he had no concern with the land in question.

The constitutional petition was dismissed.

These case notes provide a comprehensive overview of the legal issues and outcomes in each case, including the relevant legal provisions and key arguments presented by the parties involved.

Case Name: 2020 YLR 95 (Peshawar High Court)

Parties:

Appellant: MAROOF

Opponent: DAUD

Legal Provision: Section 42

Summary:

In this case, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, claiming that their predecessor had purchased half share in the suit property through a Mutation from the defendant. However, the Mutation was later canceled. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had promised to transfer the property but failed to do so. Both the Trial Court and the appellate court dismissed the suit.

Key Points:

The plaintiffs’ claim was based on a Mutation that had been canceled.

The predecessor of the plaintiffs was aware of the Mutation’s cancellation but did not approach the competent court of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs filed the suit 19 years after the events in question, with no explanation for the delay.

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient, reliable, and convincing evidence to support their claim.

The courts below correctly dismissed the suit on both merits and grounds of limitation.

The revision petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 675 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD SANA ULLAH

Opponent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Legal Provision: Order XVI, Rules 1 & 2

Summary:

This case pertains to an application filed by the petitioner under Order XVI, Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C). The respondents had filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a Mutation. The petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement, and issues were framed. However, the petitioner filed the application without explaining the delay in submitting the list of witnesses.

Key Points:

The petitioner filed the list of witnesses after the evidence of the respondents had been recorded and the case was set for the petitioner’s evidence.

According to the law, the list of witnesses should have been presented in court no later than seven days after the framing of issues.

The court emphasized that the law favored adjudication on merits and not mere technicalities, and it favored the vigilant, not the indolent.

The petitioner’s grounds for condoning the delay in filing the list of witnesses were not considered sufficient.

The courts below were justified in dismissing the application, and the constitutional petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2020 PLD 478 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: Brig. (R) MASOOD SALAM

Opponent: SOHAIL AHMAD

Legal Provisions: Sections 45 & 53 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Chapter VI [Sections 42 & 43]

Summary:

This case addressed the jurisdiction of revenue courts in cases involving fraud and mutations. The mutation in question was alleged to be the result of fraud. The court clarified that when fraud was alleged, a civil suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C), should be filed, and revenue courts lacked jurisdiction.

Key Points:

Disputed questions of fact and allegations of fraud regarding the cancellation of mutations could not be decided by revenue courts.

In cases involving fraud, parties should approach civil courts for resolution.

The jurisdiction of revenue courts was limited in such matters.

The parties were directed to approach civil courts for resolution.

Case Name: 2020 PCrLJ 164 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: NASEEM ABBAS SHAH

Opponent: State

Legal Provisions: Section 497(5) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Sections 409, 420, 468 & 471 of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Summary:

This case involved an application for the cancellation of bail. The accused persons were booked for criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, cheating, dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, and forgery for the purpose of cheating. The court considered whether bail should be canceled.

Key Points:

The accused persons were implicated in a crime report involving allegations of bribery, illegal entry of mutations, embezzlement of mutation fees, and forgery in revenue records.

The report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) had already been prepared and sent to the prosecution branch.

The court determined that there were no allegations of misuse or abuse of bail concessions.

Given the progress of the case, the cancellation of bail was not deemed appropriate.

The applications for the cancellation of bail were dismissed.

Case Name: 2020 YLRN 57 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: MOHAMMAD ASHRAF

Opponent: MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V) BOR/CSC

Legal Provisions: Section 3 of the Scheme of Disposal and Management of Urban Evacuee Properties, 1977, Paragraphs 6, 11, 12 & 30 of the same scheme

Summary:

This case involved the purchase of evacuee property, specifically a building site. The land in question was evacuee property, and its allotment had been canceled as bogus. The petitioners argued that they were ready to purchase the property at the rate when it was allotted to the original allottee or at the rate when they purchased it from the original allottee. The court addressed the validity of their request.

Key Points:

The land in question was evacuee property, and there were no provisions for its sale through private treaty or at market prices.

The petitioners’ contention was not acceptable, as the property was to be disposed of through an unrestricted public auction.

Public officials were considered trustees and custodians of public property, which could only be disposed of in accordance with the law.

The court emphasized the transparency of the public auction process, which served the public interest.

The petitioners had the right to participate in the auction proceedings, and their request for the fixation of a market price from a previous year was not tenable.

The constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Case Name: 2020 YLRN 52 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: Sheikh RAUF AHMAD

Opponent: Dr. NAZIR SAEED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V), BOARD OF REVENUE

Legal Provisions: Sections 2(2) & 3, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Sections 2(b)(3), 4 & 13, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959, Rule 7-A, Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Sections 33, 34, 35 & 37, Punjab Land Revenue (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance (XVIII of 1963), Section 37-A, Notification No. 236-66/948-R(L), dated 24.02.1966

Summary:

In this case, the petitioners were aggrieved by the cancellation of their allotment and the transfer of evacuee land through a notification from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners argued that after the repeal of evacuee laws, the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not have the power to cancel allotments as they were past and closed transactions. However, the court examined the validity of these claims.

Key Points:

The court noted that a notification issued in 1966 treated urban properties of “Moza Amar Sadhu” as building sites, preventing further allotments.

The notifications were still in effect as they were neither withdrawn nor set aside by any competent authority.

The settlement laws were repealed in 1975, but the Notified Officer’s jurisdiction was limited to proceedings immediately pending or matters remanded by the Supreme Court.

The court emphasized the need for a policy to be framed by the Federal Government for the disposal of urban land.

The land in question was listed as owned by the Central Government, with the petitioners’ names in the column for possession, but not ownership.

No evidence was provided to show that the petitioners were listed as owners or that a mutation was available in favor of the alleged allottees.

The entire record of RL-IIs was sealed in 1973 due to a ban on further allotments, making any subsequent allotment patently illegal.

The court found that collusion had taken place to usurp valuable evacuee/state property.

Protection could not be granted to the petitioners under past and closed transactions.

The court declined to interfere in the orders of cancellation passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional defects in those orders.

The petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2020 CLCN 46 (Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court)

Parties:

Appellant: SAEED UR REHMAN

Opponent: NAFEES AHMAD

Legal Provision: Order VII, Rule 11

Summary:

In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and the cancellation of a gift deed based on a Mutation attested in his favor. However, the Mutation was canceled by the Collector. The defendant filed an application for the rejection of the plaint, arguing that the plaintiff had no cause of action. The Trial Court accepted the application for the rejection of the plaint, but it was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The court examined the validity of these actions.

Key Points:

The Mutation attested in favor of the plaintiff had been canceled by the Collector during the pendency of the suit.

The Trial Court had issued an interim injunction directing the parties to maintain the status quo.

Both parties were claiming ownership and title to the suit land.

The Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit.

To invoke Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), only the contents of the plaint and its accompaniments should be considered, not the defendant’s case set up in defense.

The plaintiff had stated that he had purchased the suit property through the alleged Mutation and was in possession.

The title of the defendant had also been challenged on the basis of collusion and fraud.

The Trial Court had committed material irregularity and illegality in rejecting the plaint.

The Appellate Court rightly set aside the order of rejection of the plaint.

The revision was dismissed.

Case Name: 2019 PLD 599 (Supreme Court)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD AKRAM

Opponent: Mst. NOOR BEGUM

Legal Provisions: Sections 42, proviso & 52, Specific Relief Act (1877)

Summary:

In this case, the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit but did not seek the cancellation of any of the impugned Mutations under Section 52 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act stated that no court shall make any such declaration when the plaintiff, able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omitted to do so. The court examined the maintainability of the suit.

Key Points:

The plaintiff’s declaratory suit did not seek the cancellation of any Mutations.

Section 52 of the Specific Relief Act allows for the cancellation of instruments.

The proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act restricts the court from making a declaration when the plaintiff could seek further relief.

Since the plaintiff did not seek the cancellation of the Mutations, the suit was not maintainable.

The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Case Name: 2019 CLC 138 (Quetta High Court Balochistan)

Parties:

Appellant: LASBELLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Opponent: GUL HASSAN BHOOTANI

Legal Provisions: Order XLI, Rule 31, Constitution of Pakistan, Article 10-A

Summary:

This case involved a suit for declaration and cancellation of revenue entries related to a Sale Mutation. The contention of the plaintiff was that the sale Mutation was based on fraud and collusion with a revenue officer. The suit was dismissed at both trial and appellate levels. The key issue was the non-framing of points for determination in the judgment in appeal.

Key Points:

The plaintiff alleged fraud and collusion in the Sale Mutation.

The suit was dismissed without considering the issues framed, evidence recorded, and the written statement filed by the defendants.

Deposition of witnesses and findings on issues were not discussed in accordance with the law.

The appellate court’s findings were cursory and non-speaking.

The judgment in appeal did not follow the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The available documents were not properly considered by the lower courts.

The parties were not afforded a fair opportunity by the Trial Court.

The judgments and decrees were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with directions to provide a full and fair opportunity to the parties to defend their claims and decide the case afresh.

Case Name: 2019 MLD 1469 (Peshawar High Court)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD DOST

Opponent: CIRCLE OFFICER ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, SWAT

Legal Provisions: Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Section 561-A

Summary:

In this case, the appellant sought to quash an order demanding an original registered deed, which was also the subject matter of a civil litigation pending adjudication. The dispute revolved around a registered deed dated 26.03.2018. The original owner filed a suit for cancellation of the deed and attestation of Mutations based on the deed before the civil court during the pendency of which, a criminal complaint was filed alleging fraud.

Key Points:

The dispute centered around a registered deed and allegations of fraud on the part of the petitioners.

The original owner filed both a civil suit and a criminal complaint.

The Criminal Court had taken cognizance of the matter and recorded the statement of the original owner under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Criminal Court had jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate allegations of fraud.

The High Court could not interfere in the investigation of the competent authority except in certain exceptional circumstances, which did not apply in this case.

The civil litigation was pending on the same subject matter, but the criminal court had not taken cognizance yet.

The constitutional petition had no force and was dismissed.

Case Name: 2019 YLR 1548 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: FATEH MUHAMMAD

Opponent: SAFDAR ALI alias ZAFAR ALI

Legal Provisions: Section 12, Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Summary:

In this case, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The key issue was whether the power of attorney had the authority to cancel a Mutation and transfer property on behalf of the attorney. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Key Points:

The suit involved the question of whether the agent had the authority to alienate the property through the sanction of an oral sale Mutation.

The defendants had terminated the agency, and the alienation of the property through the Mutation was contested.

The suit was filed after four years and five months, which was considered time-barred.

The lower courts failed to appreciate the evidence properly, and the judgments and decrees were set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.

Case Name: 2019 YLR 730 (Karachi High Court Sindh)

Parties:

Appellant: MUSHTAQUE HUSSAIN

Opponent: PROVINCE OF SINDH through Member Board of Revenue Hyderabad

Legal Provisions: Section 172, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order VII, Rule 11

Summary:

This case involved the cancellation of a Mutation by a Revenue Officer, and the rejection of the plaintiff’s plaint by the Trial Court. The contention was that the plaintiff should have challenged the order passed by the Deputy District Officer Revenue before a higher revenue forum.

Key Points:

The Deputy District Officer Revenue had canceled the Mutation, but the plaintiff filed the suit before the Civil Court instead of challenging it before a higher revenue forum.

The Trial Court rejected the plaint based on the plaintiff’s failure to challenge the order at a higher revenue level.

While deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint should be considered.

The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit challenging the legitimacy of the defendants and their right of inheritance.

The Trial Court summarily rejected the plaint without considering other material aspects of the matter.

The impugned orders were set aside, and the revision was allowed.

Case Name: 2019 CLC 2061 (Karachi High Court Sindh)

Parties:

Appellant: RAJA KHAN

Opponent: SHAH NAWAZ

Legal Provisions: Section 172, Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X of 1876), Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 42 & 39, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order VII, Rule 11

Summary:

This case involved a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession related to the cancellation of Mutation entries. The key issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Key Points:

The suit land was owned by the Government and was allotted to the defendant.

The plaintiff sought to cancel the Mutations, claiming them to be unlawful and void.

The jurisdiction to try such claims vested with the revenue hierarchy, not the Civil Court.

The suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court, and the plaintiff should have appealed or sought a revision before the revenue authorities.

The Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by the Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, and Section 172 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967.

The question of ejectment from evacuee property could not be decided by the Civil Court.

The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was maintained in part.

Case Name: 2018 CLC 263 (Quetta High Court Balochistan)

Parties:

Appellant: ABDUL HADI

Opponent: ABDUL HANAN

Legal Provisions: Sections 39, 42 & 54, Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 64

Summary:

This case involved a suit for the cancellation of Mutation entries, declaration, possession, and permanent injunction related to inheritance. The dispute revolved around the inheritance of a property by daughters, and the defendants contended that a Will entitled them to the property. The case raised issues regarding the interpretation of the Will and the custom of excluding female heirs.

Key Points:

The dispute centered around the inheritance of property by daughters.

The defendants claimed inheritance through a purported Will.

The Will had not been proved or authenticated properly, and it was not admissible as evidence.

Mere production of a pedigree table was not sufficient without corroborating evidence.

The plaintiffs were entitled to their sharia shares according to the law.

The findings of the Trial Court were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

These case notes provide a concise overview of each case, including the parties involved, legal provisions, key issues, and outcomes. If you require further analysis or have specific questions about any of these cases, please feel free to ask.

Case Name: 2018 CLC 1901 (Peshawar High Court)

Parties:

Appellant: Pir MUNAWAR SHAH

Opponent: HABIB-UR-REHMAN

Legal Provisions: Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 113

Summary:

In this case, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, where no specific date for payment of the remaining balance amount was mentioned, but it was stipulated that the balance would be paid at the time of attestation of Mutation. The Mutation was attested on 1.10.1995 but was canceled by a Revenue Officer on 14.3.1996. The suit for specific performance was filed on 28.1.2003. The main issue was whether the suit was time-barred.

Key Points:

The suit for specific performance was subject to a three-year limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

The starting point of the limitation period was the date of the cancellation of Mutation, which was 14.3.1996.

The suit was filed on 28.1.2003, which was beyond the three-year limitation period.

As a result, the suit for specific performance was considered time-barred.

The revision was dismissed on these grounds.

Case Name: 2018 YLR 829 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: Mst. BILQEES BARKAT

Opponent: MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE J-V/Chief Settlement Commissioner

Legal Provisions: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), General Clauses Act (X of 1897)

Summary:

This case involved the cancellation of allotment of evacuee land and subsequent Mutations due to alleged fraud. The contention was that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers of the land. However, the Chief Settlement Commissioner canceled the allotment and Mutations. The main issue was whether the cancellation was justified.

Key Points:

The case revolved around the cancellation of allotment and Mutations related to evacuee land.

The petitioners claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the land.

The Chief Settlement Commissioner had canceled the allotment and Mutations on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation.

The land in question was acquired by the government, and the original allottee did not qualify as a genuine claimant.

The Chief Settlement Commissioner’s authority to cancel the allotment and Mutations was upheld.

The court held that fraud vitiates proceedings, and ill-gotten gains achieved by fraud cannot be validated under any law.

The evacuee laws were repealed, and the Chief Settlement Commissioner had limited jurisdiction to conclude pending proceedings.

The matter was remanded to the Notified Officer to determine the genuineness of the claims.

The subsequent purchaser was deemed to have committed a default in investigating the genuineness of the vendor’s title.

The protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was not available to the subsequent vendee of evacuee property.

The constitutional petition was dismissed.

Case Name: 2018 YLR 422 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: MUHAMMAD WARIS

Opponent: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Legal Provisions: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3(2)

Summary:

In this case, the appellant sought a review of a Mutation regarding land ownership based on an agreement to sell. The Mutations in the name of the seller were canceled. The issue was whether the appellant had the right to challenge the cancellation.

Key Points:

The appellant claimed ownership over the land based on an agreement to sell.

The Mutations in the name of the seller were canceled.

The appellant failed to challenge the Mutation during the prescribed time of 90 days.

The appellant did not establish excess of jurisdiction or mala fide on the part of authorities.

The Single Judge of the High Court rightly refused to invoke jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.

The intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Case Name: 2018 CLCN 19 (Lahore High Court Lahore)

Parties:

Appellant: BASHIR AHMAD

Opponent: MUHAMMAD AKRAM

Legal Provisions: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 39 & 42

Summary:

In this case, the appellant filed a suit for the declaration and cancellation of Mutations related to private partition. The plaintiffs sought cancellation on the grounds that the Mutations were not sanctioned by the competent Revenue Authority. The key issue was whether the suit was time-barred.

Key Points:

The suit involved the cancellation of Mutations related to a private partition.

The plaintiffs argued that the Mutations were not affirmed by the competent Revenue Authority.

Sections 147 & 150 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, stipulated that only a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector-Grade-1 could affirm such private partitions.

The issue of the non-affirmation of the Mutations was not properly discussed in the trial court’s judgment.

The trial court non-suited the plaintiffs primarily on the grounds of limitation.

The High Court held that the issue of limitation should be addressed in light of the jurisdiction of the authority who attested the Mutations without jurisdiction.

The matter was remanded to the Notified Officer to determine the genuineness of the claim.

The revision was dismissed.

Case Name: 2018 MLD 151 (Karachi High Court Sindh)

Parties:

Appellant: NAZEER AHMED

Opponent: AHMED KHAN

Legal Provisions: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Sections 41 & 54, Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 88, 100 & 129(g), Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Section 33

Summary:

In this case, the appellant claimed ownership of land based on an agreement to sell, where the vendor claimed ownership based on KHATOONI/Purcha Taqseem. The Mutations were not in the appellant’s favor. The main issue was whether the appellant’s claim was bona fide and whether the agreement could be specifically enforced.

Key Points:

The appellant claimed ownership based on an agreement to sell, but the Mutations were not in his favor.

The appellant had to prove the bona fides of the sale agreement.

Protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act could be availed if four conditions were met, including consent of the real owner and good faith of the transferee.

The appellant failed to establish bona fides and did not investigate the independent title of the respondents.

The alleged KHATOONI was not proven or certified as required by law.

The suit land was not mutated in the appellant’s name, and he did not establish the bona fides of the transaction.

The agreement was deemed void, and specific performance was not available.

The revision was dismissed.

Key Takeaways on Cancellation of Mutation

Based on the cases above, there are several conclusions that can be drawn regarding the cancellation of Mutation in Pakistani law:

Correction of Entries: The courts have affirmed that revenue authorities have the authority to correct entries in a Mutation, even on their own motion. This correction is not limited to rectifying errors but can also include addressing discrepancies or fraudulent entries.

Legal Competence: Revenue officers are legally competent to make corrections in Mutation records, provided that the corrections are made in accordance with the law and rules governing such corrections.

Mutations are Not Absolute: Mutations are not considered sacrosanct or untouchable. They can be amended or cancelled if necessary to ensure the accuracy of the revenue record.

Remedy through Appeal or Revision: If a party is aggrieved by the cancellation or correction of a Mutation, they have the option to seek remedy through appeal or revision before a higher forum, such as a court or appellate authority.

Jurisdiction of Courts: Courts generally do not interfere in cases involving the cancellation or correction of Mutations unless there is a clear violation of the law or an unlawful act. Writ petitions may be dismissed if they seek to prevent a lawful act by the revenue authorities.

Importance of Following Procedures: It’s crucial for revenue authorities to follow proper legal procedures and rules when cancelling or correcting Mutations to avoid legal challenges and ensure the rights of landowners and claimants are protected.

Ownership and Possession Claims: Claims of ownership and possession by parties can be a significant factor in disputes related to Mutations. The legal status and documentation supporting such claims play a crucial role in the outcome of cases.

In summary, the cancellation or correction of Mutations in Pakistan is a legal process that aims to maintain the accuracy of revenue records. Revenue authorities have the authority to make such corrections, provided they adhere to the law and relevant rules. Parties affected by these actions have the option to seek remedies through appeal or revision in higher forums. It’s essential for all parties involved to follow the prescribed legal procedures to avoid disputes and legal challenges.

Conclusion

Mutation holds significant importance in the sale and purchase of land in Pakistan. Properly recording the transfer of ownership through the mutation process provides legal recognition, protects property rights, and facilitates compliance with applicable laws and regulations. At Josh and Mak International, we assist our clients in navigating the complexities of property transactions, including the mutation process. Our experienced legal team ensures that sale-purchase agreements are appropriately documented, recorded, and legally binding, thereby safeguarding our clients’ interests in their property transactions. For expert advice and assistance, please contact our team at [email protected]

By The Josh and Mak Team

Josh and Mak International is a distinguished law firm with a rich legacy that sets us apart in the legal profession. With years of experience and expertise, we have earned a reputation as a trusted and reputable name in the field. Our firm is built on the pillars of professionalism, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to providing excellent legal services. We have a profound understanding of the law and its complexities, enabling us to deliver tailored legal solutions to meet the unique needs of each client. As a virtual law firm, we offer affordable, high-quality legal advice delivered with the same dedication and work ethic as traditional firms. Choose Josh and Mak International as your legal partner and gain an unfair strategic advantage over your competitors.