Understanding Mutation in Pakistani Law

The information provided in this bulletin is intended to inform but is not a substitute for specific legal or other professional advice where warranted by each situation’s facts and circumstances. Under some Rules of Professional Conduct, this communication may constitute attorney advertising.

If you need specific advice on your matter involving Land Law or Mutation, please call Mr Pir Wahid Advocate at +92-3005075993 or send us an email at pirwahid@joshandmak.com

1. Attestation of mutation whether conveyed title to vendee/donee—Mere attestation of mutation does not convey any title to vendee/donee—Such transaction must be proved independently through cogent evidence by beneficiary claiming title thereunder—Entries in revenue record are maintained for fiscal purpose alone—NO independent evidence had been brought on record to prove making of gift/tamleek by alleged donor in favour of defendants—Defendants had failed to establish through independent evidence factum of making of tamleek of land in question in their favour, therefore, they have failed to discharge legal onus which law had placed on them. P L J 2004 Pesh. 14 Whether mutations were of gift or of sale–Question of–In these mutations words ‘Hibbs’ and ‘Wahiban’ in relevant columns of mutation, were cut and overwritten as ‘Bai’ and Its. 1,000/- was inserted as sale consideration for land in each of these mutations though area covered by them greatly varied lt was, therefore, rightly observed by learned High Court that if parties to transaction had changed their mind, revenue authorities were required to reject mutation of sale after recording such report in ‘Roznamcha Waqiati’, as required under Section 42 (1) of West Pakistan Revenue Act, 1967, at instance of owner and then all formalities required for completion of transaction of sale should have. been completed before attestation of sale mutation–Neither such report was made to Patwari nor any entry was made in ‘Roznamcha’ where from it can be gathered that both parties had changed their mind and agreed to convert gift transaction into that of sale–Held : Purpose behind these mutations, was to get suit land partitioned in manner that each one of them shall become owner of specific Khasra number to exclusion of others, for that gift mutations were resorted to as a device to achieve that end. PLJ 1996 SC 58

2. Burden of proof—Held, in order to prove the existence of a transaction of exchange through mutation, the party that relies on such mutation was bound to prove the both—Failure of party relying on the mutation to discharge its burden was a blow to the existence of any exchange transaction between the parties. PLD 2003 SC 688 Leave was granted by S.C to examine contentions that two illiterate sisters had been deprived of their land in collusion with Patwari and Courts below had ignored some basic features of case while upholding legality of impugned mutation that at time of attestation of mutation none of male relatives of women was present, that they were alleged to have been identified by a person who was Lambardar of a different village who did not state as to how he was acquainted with two sisters residing in a different village; that according to one of vendees who appeared on behalf of other vendees at trial consideration for sale was paid before Tehsildar while attesting officer denied that it was so paid and that neither mutation register nor relevant page of Patwari’s Roznamcha Waqiati bore thumb-impressions of two sister. P.L.J. 2002 SC 427 Where pleas of fraud, deception and misrepresentation had been taken by the illiterate Pardahnashin ladies in alleged disposal of their properties, the onus in such cases lay on the person who had taken advantage of the transaction to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the document through which transaction had been executed and the contents of such documents were fully conceived and understood by the executant independently and freely, Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others PLD 1990 SC 642 ref. 2001 SCMR 1591 Where pleas of fraud, deception and misrepresentation had been taken by the illiterate Pardahnashin ladies m alleged disposal of their properties, the onus in such cases lay on the person who had taken advantage of the transaction to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the document through which transaction had been executed and the contents of such documents were fully conceived and understood by the executant independently and freely, 2001 SCMR 1591 Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others PLD 1990 SC 642 ref.

3. Controversy relating to entitlement to inheritance and impugned mutation–Trail Court had taken into consideration evidence in support by sect of parties–Appellate Court was not right in holding that those proceedings before Revenue Officer could not be considered by Trial Court, in view of fact when presence and participation of close relatives of parties and his statement against his interest that deceased (his uncle) was to Shia by faith was not disputed by plaintiff. PLJ 2003 Lahore 9951936P.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 ref.
4. Correction of entries in Revenue Record—Total area of land in question was allotted to two allottees respectively—Total land was exhausted, but in two entries in Register R.L.II additional area was created and said additional area, which in fact did not exist, was allotted to predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner—On application of successor-in-interest of allottee of land. Authorities corrected entries of Revenue Record—Additional area created in Register R.L.II factually being none-xistent, Authorities rightly ordered for correction of Revenue Record as fictitious entries could not be allowed to stay in the revenue documents. Burden of proof that such entries were correct was on the party in whose favour such entries existed and not on the party challenging correctness of such entry. P L D 1993 Pesh. 127
5. Correction of mutation –It was recommended by Tehsildar and A.C. that respondents may be directed to seck remedy in competent court as change had been made in consolidation proceedings–Ignoring these proposals, District Collector directed correction through Sehat Intiqal without assigning any reason and without hearing concerned parties. He did not apply-his mind to point whether such a correction was warranted after confirmation of consolidation scheme of revenue estate–Held: Petitioners having been condemned unheard, order of District Collector is liable to be set aside on this score only–Petition accepted and case remanded. PLJ 1992 Revenue 86
6. Entries of mutation—Effect—Entries of mutation which were not incorporated in Jamabandi would not carry presumption of truth—Such entries were intended to keep record for collection of land revenue—Such ,entries, however, having been prepared by officials in discharge of their official duties were admissible in evidence and were entitled to great weight according to circumstances of each case—Onus to prove evidential value of such entries was upon those who were beneficiaries of those entries. 1994 M L D 1269
7. Evidentiary value of Entries in duly sanctioned mutation:- Entries in duly sanctioned mutations which were still not incorporated in the record of rights, would not carry presumption of truth Nature of mutation proceedings being summary in nature, they were intended to keep record of collection of land revenue ¬Mutations, however, were admissible evidence and were entitled to weight dependent upon circumstances of each case To prove factum of admission as recorded in the entries of mutation, person relying upon such entries has to prove admission in consonance with the principles of Qanun e Shahadat which are applicable to prove admissions Initial onus of proof of a transaction embodied in mutation is essentially upon the beneficiary of the mutation. 1993 C L C 1374 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 ref. Entries in duly sanctioned mutations which were yet to be incorporated in the record of rights, would not carry presumption of truth-Nature of mutation proceedings was summary in nature and was intended to keep record of collection of land revenue Such entries made under S.42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 were admissible under Art.49, Qanun¬ e Shahadat, 1984 Entries in mutation being admissible. in evidence were entitled to weight dependent upon circumstances of each case; parties relying upon entries in mutation were required to prove admission of other parties in consonance with principles of evidence which were applicable to prove admissions Initial onus of proof of a transaction embodied in mutation was essentially upon beneficiary of the mutation. P L D 1993 Lah. 33
8. Gift by deaf and dumb persons- One of petitioners was produced in court on direction of court–He could not respond to questions put by court and there was no response either when he was given a paper containing Urdu writing–He can only understand simple signs connoting eating, drinking water etc.–Other petitioner having not been produced, presumption is that his state may be worse–Petitioners are found unable to understand or to communicate either through spoken or written words–Question arises as to how they could understand or comprehend higher questions of practical life such as ownership, property, gift etc.–At time of attestation of mutation, Revenue Officer found that parties had accepted fact of alienation of land–Held: Both petitioners being unable to speak or express themselves, both reports of patwari and Revenue Officer fail to meet provisions of Section 42(2)(7) and (8) of Land Revenue Act. PLJ 1993 Revenue 18
9. Gift mutation, assailing of—Suit-land was transferred in favour of the defendant by her husband vide gift mutation attested on 25-1-1932—Plaintiffs were legal heirs of one of the daughters of the donor and they assailed the mutation in civil suit filed on 31-7-1984— Contention of the plaintiffs was that the defendant was entitled only to the extent of l/8th share in the suit property—Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs whereas the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit—Validity—Plaintiffs failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record—Appellate Court had appreciated the evidence on record and the inference drawn by such evidence was lawfully made—Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity—High Court declined to interfere with the same. 2002 MLD 500
10. Inheritance:- Plaintiff claiming to be entitled to inherit entire estate of deceased as his sole legal heir/brother, challenged mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of defendants as daughters of deceased to extent of 2/3rd share as void and ineffective on his rights—Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ mother was married with one MD son of GM. who died in India before partition and defendants were born from the wedlock in India; and thereafter defendants’ mother married with plaintiff’s brother (deceased) namely MD son of ID—Trial Court decreed the suit—Appellate Court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit, which decision was upheld by High Court in revision—Validity—Plaintiffs could not prove that defendants were the daughters of said MD son of GM, with whom their mother had married in India—Both the Courts below had given much weight to defendants’ evidence being more relevant in comparison to the plaintiff’s evidence and had rightly found the defendants to be the daughters of deceased—Appellate Court had correctly appreciated and believed the evidence of two defendants’ witnesses hailing from same village, where marriage of defendants’ mother had taken place with MD son of ID—Defendants had placed on record copies of Nikahnamas and identity cards to establish that they were daughters of MD (brother of plaintiff)—Copy of Nikahnama produced did not require production of witnesses to prove the same—Inheritance mutation had been sanctioned by Revenue Officer in ‘Jalsa Aam’ after having verified that defendants were daughters of deceased MD—Lambardar in whose presence mutation was attested had supported the defendants’ version—Plaintiff had not challenged inheritance mutation before revenue hierarchy, which remedy was available to him according to law—Plaintiff could not point out any illegality in impugned judgment justifying interference by Supreme Court—Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Rasul Bibi v. Waryam 1992 SCMR 1520 ref. 2002 SCMR 1408 Dispute was with regard to Shari share in the property left by father and uterine brother of the plaintiff—Uterine brother who was also co-sharer in the property left by the father of the plaintiff was holding the same for and on behalf of all the co-sharers— Contention of the defendants was that the suit was time-barred—Validity—Assailing of adverse entry in Revenue Record was not barred by limitation and could not amount to ouster of a co-sharer in the property—Brother, on the basis of such entry, could not legally claim adverse possession against his sister—Suit was not time-barred in circumstances. Mst. Namdara and 3 others v. Sahibzada and others 1998 SCMR 996 ref. 2002 CLC 1539 Where mutation was attested on 25-1-1932 and the writ was filed on 31-7-1984. such suit was barred by time. 2002 MLD 500
11. Mortgage of land against loan- It is significant to note that redecessor-in-interest of petitioners, during his life time, had raised plea of fraud in civil court but his suit was dismissed as withdrawn after his death—His thumb marks on various documents are also not denied but plea of fraud is being emphasised to escape his liability–His blindness has also been stressed although no such evidence is on record–Held: Attestation of mutation is a summary proceeding and intricate and complex questions of law and fact cannot be inquired into by attesting Revenue Officer–Held further: Mutation has correctly been entered and attested–Petition dismissed. PLJ 1992 Revenue 7
12. Mutation :– sanctioning of mutation or reporting oral gift to Revenue Authorities. Same would be a strong circumstance in support of transaction of gift. 2004 C L C 33 Mutation proceedings are intended primarily for fiscal purposes for collection of land revenue and they are by no means judicial proceedings in which right and title of property is to be determined. PLJ 2004 Lah. 193
13. Mutation by Pardahnashin Ladies :- Where pleas of fraud, deception and misrepresentation had been taken by illiterate Pardahnashin ladies in alleged disposal of their properties, onus in such cases lay on person who had taken advantage of transaction to prove genuineness and bona fides of document through which transaction had been executed and contents of such documents were fully conceived and understood by executant independently and freely. P.L.J. 2002 SC 427 Pardahnashin ladies emphatically denied sale and their appearance before Revenue Officer or receipt of any sale consideration – Where evidence of beneficiaries in record was not only unsatisfactory but was incredible, such evidence could not be attached any credence–Pardahnashin ladies, in circumstances, were not a party to mutations and they were totally kept in dark about transactions and fictions mutations were got attested with connivance of Revenue Staff–Mutation proceedings wherein two ladies had denied their participation were not only in gross violation of S. 42(7) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 but were also false and fictitious, as such, mutations being illegal, entire structure built on them would fall to ground–Fraud vitiates even most solemn transaction as such any transaction based on, fraud would be void and notwithstanding bar of limitation matter could be considered on merits so as not to allow fraud to perpetuate. P.L.J. 2002 SC 427 Two illiterate women had been deprived of their land in collusion with the Patwari and the Courts below had ignored some basic features of the case while upholding tile legality of the impugned mutation; that at the time of attestation of mutation none of the male relatives of the women was present, that they were alleged to have been identified by a person who was Lambardar of a different village who did not state as to how he was acquainted with the two women residing in a different village; that 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 that it was so paid and that neither the mutation register nor the relevant page of the Patwari’s Roznamcha Waqiati bore the thumb-impressions of the two women, 2001 SCMR 1591
14. Mutation confers no title—Once a mutation is challenged, the party that relies on such mutation in bound to revert to the original transaction to prove such original transaction which resulted into the entry or attestation of such mutation in dispute—Mutation not being a title deed, is merely an evidence of some original transaction between the parties that had been struck somewhere prior to entry of a mutation—Person relying on such mutation, in the present case, had failed to revert back to any transaction and bring on record any oral or documentary evidence thereof—Burden squarely lay on the said person to prove the transaction because the existence thereof had throughout been alleged by him in the affirmative and he was bound to fail in the event of the non-proof of the transaction. PLD 2003 SC 688 Once a mutation is challenged, the party that relies on such mutation is bound to revert to the original transaction to prove such original transaction which resulted into the entry or attestation of such mutation in dispute—Mutation not being a title deed, is merely an evidence of some original transaction between the parties that had been struck somewhere prior to entry of a mutation—Person relying on such mutation, in the present case, had tailed to revert back to any transaction and bring on record any oral or documentary evidence thereof—Burden squarely lay on the said person to prove the transaction because the existence thereof had throughout been alleged by him in the affirmative and he was bound to fail in the event of the non-proof of the transaction. PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688
15. Mutation of exchange, Requirements— Mere entry of Roznamcha Waqiati alone was not the only requirement of S. 42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 but numerous steps were also to be necessarily taken. PLD 2003 SC 688
16. Mutation register Mutation register is document forming part of official record¬ Certified copies of official record would be receivable in evidence Par seeking to dislodge truth of, or genuineness of contents of sup document, held, would bear burden to prove same Where origin register could not be produced by Authority, production of certified copy thereof, by person, affected thereby, would be admissible evidence. 1986 M L D 979
17. Mutation, attestation of – Lambardar who was supposed to identify the transferors qua the land had to be to the village concerned and not at all form the Patwar circle which includes numerous villages and the people of which were not at all acquainted with the people of other villages—Identification by a Lambardar of unconcerned village was a factum that indicated doubtful nature of the transaction. PLD 2003 SC 688 Total land of illiterate Pardahnashin ladies was got mutated at their back – Ladies emphatically ‘denied the sale and their appearance before the Revenue Officer or the receipt of any sale consideration – Lambardar of the concerned village was available to witness the mutations but Lambardar of another village was presented for the purpose who had not explained as to how he knew the Pardahnashin ladies-Neither the register of mutations nor the mutation bore the thumb-impressions of the two ladies who were allegedly identified/by the Lambardar of another village – Revenue Officer while attesting the mutations had not insisted for the presence of the male relatives of the ladies who could identify them and the presence of respectables of the locality preferably the Lambardar of the area as required by S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 – Beneficiary party, in circumstances, had to establish by a strong and reliable evidence that the documents i.e. disputed mutations were genuine and bona fide and had been voluntarily and freely entered and attested at the free-will of the executants – Where the evidence of the beneficiaries in the record was not only unsatisfactory but was incredible, such evidence could not be attached any credence – Pardahnashin ladies, in circumstances, were not a party to the mutations and they were totally kept in dark about the transactions and fictitious mutations were got attested with the connivance of the Revenue Staff – Mutation proceedings wherein the two ladies-had denied their participation were not only in gross violation of S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 but were also false and fictitious, as such, the mutations being illegal, the entire structure built on them would fall to the ground – Fraud vitiates even the most solemn transaction as such any transaction based on fraud would be void and notwithstanding the bar of limitation, the matter could be considered on merits so as not to allow fraud to perpetuate, 2001 SCMR 1591 Whenever an exchange was entered into it was always for certain material considerations weighing with the parties—Appellants, in the present case, neither owned any property in the relevant village with which the land could have been consolidated nor they had any relationship at that village for whose sake they could have migrated—Comparative valuation of both the properties had no comparison whatsoever, one being sixteen times higher in value than the other – Validity—Reasonableness of an exchange transaction could be gone into by the Court like it did in a case of gift— Reasonableness of a transaction of exchange thus was a very strong as well as relevant consideration. PLD 2003 SC 688 Acquisition of proprietary right of inheritance, was not dependant on the attestation of mutation in Revenue Record—Mutation itself would not create any right, so its authenticity could not be doubted simply because it was not given effect in Revenue Record. 2003 MLD 702 Where pleas of fraud, deception and misrepresentation had been taken by the illiterate Pardahnashin ladies m alleged disposal of their properties, the onus in such cases lay on the person who had taken advantage of the transaction to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the document through which transaction had been executed and the contents of such documents were fully conceived and understood by the executant independently and freely, Jannat Bibi v. Sikandar Ali and others PLD 1990 SC 642 ref. .= 2001 SCMR 1591 Total land of illiterate Pardahnashin ladies was got mutated at their back—Validity—Ladies emphatically ‘denied the sale and their appearance before the Revenue Officer or the receipt of any sale consideration—Lambardar of the concerned village was available to witness the mutations but Lambardar of another village was presented for the purpose who had not explained as to how he knew the Pardahnashin ladies-Neither the register of mutations nor the mutation bore the thumb-impressions of the two ladies who were allegedly identified/by the Lambardar of another village—Revenue Officer while attesting the mutations had not insisted for the presence of the male relatives of the ladies who could identify them and the presence of respectables of the locality preferably the Lambardar of the area as required by S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967—Beneficiary party, in circumstances, had to establish by a strong and reliable evidence that the documents i.e. disputed mutations were genuine and bona fide and had been voluntarily and freely entered and attested at the free-will of the executants—Where the evidence of the beneficiaries in the record was not only unsatisfactory but was incredible, such evidence could not be attached any credence—Pardahnashin ladies, in circumstances, were not a party to the mutations and they were totally kept in dark about the transactions and fictitious mutations were got attested with the connivance of the Revenue Staff—Mutation proceedings wherein the two ladies-had denied their participation were not only in gross violation of S.42(7) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 but were also false and fictitious, as such, the mutations being illegal, the entire structure built on them would fall to the ground—Fraud vitiates even the most solemn transaction as such any transaction based on fraud would be void and notwithstanding the bar of limitation, the matter could be considered on merits so as not to allow fraud to perpetuate, .= 2001 SCMR 1591 Mutation—Onus to prove—Transfer by Pardanashin lady—Burden of proof lies on every vendee who claims title under mutation much less a Pardanashin lady in whose case such burden is much aggravated. 2002 CLC 300
18. Mutation, legality of – Leave to appeal was granted by the S.C to examine the contentions that two illiterate women had been deprived of their land in collusion with the Patwari and the Courts below had ignored some basic features of the case while upholding tile legality of the impugned mutation; that at the time of attestation of mutation none of the male relatives of the women was present, that they were alleged to have been identified by a person who was Lambardar of a different village who did not state as to how he was acquainted with the two women residing in a different village; that 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 that it was so paid and that neither the mutation register nor the relevant page of the Patwari’s Roznamcha Waqiati bore the thumb-impressions of the two women, 2001 SCMR 1591
19. Proof of Mutation attestation- Most important entities in connection with the attestation of mutation were the Patwari Halqa who had to enter the mutation and the Revenue Officer who was to attest the same— Both the said functionaries having not been produced and examined in the Court, the mutation in question could not be said to have been proved. PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688
20. Purpose:- Mutation proceedings are intended primarily for fiscal purposes for collection of land revenue and they are by no means judicial proceedings in which right and title of property is to be determined-Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and entries thereof, are admissible under Art. 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. PL J 2004 Lahore 193
21. Reasonableness of Transaction of exchange-Whenever an exchange was entered into it was always for certain material considerations weighing with the parties—Appellants, in the present case, neither owned any property in the relevant village with which the land could have been consolidated nor they had any relationship at that village for whose sake they could have migrated— Comparative valuation of both the properties had no comparison whatsoever, one being sixteen times higher in value than the other—Validity—Reasonableness of an exchange transaction could be gone into by the Court like it did in a case of gift—Reasonableness of a transaction of exchange thus was a very strong as well as relevant consideration. PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688
22. Requirements—Mere entry of Roznamcha Waqiati alone was not the only requirement of S.42, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 but numerous steps were also to be necessarily taken. PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688
23. Sanction of mutation in pursuance of decree :– as such the same was merely a formality and was not independent act and according to law did not by itself independently had the effect of creating any right—Revenue Authorities were bound to make changes in Revenue Record according to the decree of Civil Court. 2004 S C M R 117
24. Sanction of Mutation:–Petitoner applied for sanction of mutation of plot tranferred by Settlement Department in his name–ADC(G), despite receipt of report of re-verification of transfer order from Secretary (Settlement & Rehabilitation) did not sanction mutation–Constitutional petition Maintainability of–Denial of right of petitioner and refusal to sanction mutation by keeping matter pending for about three years had conferred right on petitioner to invoke help of constitutional Court through filing of writ petition–Provisions of Art. 199 of Constitution 1973 confer very wide powers on High Court for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights- Article 199 of Constitution provides remedy for infringement of fundamental and legal rights of persons–However, condition precedent to granting of any relief under said Article of constitution depends on existing of fundamental and legal right of person and of infringement of such right–Right which is foundation of Article 199 of the Constitution is personal and individual right–Legal right may be statutory right recognized by law–Person could be said to be aggrieved when person was denied legal right by some one who had legal duty to perform relating to that right–Held: Writ petition was maintainable. PLJ 2000 Lahore 497
25. Scope:- judgment debtor on making a consent before trial court stood divested of all his rights in suit property decree holder on depositing decrial amount becomes absolute owner of suit property and sanctioning of mutation was only a formality to be done such decree was not required to be put to execution ownership of decree-holder would remain intact even if such decree was not put to execution revenue officer was under statutory obligation to implement in revenue record such decree even if its execution petition had become time barred or was dismissed by executing court. 2010, M. L. D. 187
26. Status of Mutation entries:- Mutation entires do not create title and always carry a rebuttable presumption–Mutation entries were entered in name of Appellant No. 1 in utter violation of principles of natural justice and during this period it has been proved that respondents were in possession of property in dispute–On the contrary appellants failed to substantiate their ownership over property in dispute–Conversely ‘ respondents by referring to settlement record of 1904-5 have proved that government did not own any property in said Mauza–Respondents have further substantiated their contention that even Government acquired land for purpose of Quetta-Killa Saifullah Road from respondents for which they were duly compensated—Thus the issue regarding reversal of revenue entries has been rightly decided in favour of respondents–Since issues going to roots of case have been decided in favour of appellant; thus there is no need to dilate upon other issues. PLJ 1999 Quetta 98
27. Transaction embodied in mutation :- Onus of proof of a transaction embodied in mutation is upon beneficiary of such mutation—Rebuttable presumption in favour of party in whose favour of party in whose favour mutation was effected coupled with the fact that burden of proof lies on the beneficiary, in whose favour entry exists and not on a party challenging correctness of such entries—Mere mutation does neither create any right or extinguish existing right unless transaction/facts on basis of which the same had been sanctioned of denied were independently proved to have existed. PLJ 2004 Lah. 193

ajax loader

This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro
Translate »
Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.