It is a settled law that the concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction– The provisions of Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 allocate certain matters to the sole competence of the Revenue authorities, to the exclusion of civil courts. However, it must be noted that Section 172 only empowers Revenue authorities to exercise administrative powers; the raison d’etre for the same is that the proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer or a Revenue Court are summary in nature; they possess a limited scope of enquiry and do not possess the characteristics of a civil suit that necessitates framing of the issues or recording evidence of the parties, as such matters fall within the sole domain of the civil courts.
The two concurrent findings of fact not only negate the facts on the basis whereof DDO (R) had cancelled the subject mutation but also destroyed the plea of the respondents that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice. Our perusal of the record further clearly demonstrates that the appellant, though it was not required of him, had not only produced one of the witnesses of the sale mutation but also produced Muhammad Ajmal and Wahid Bakhsh Patwaris who had not only supported the sale but also deposed that at the relevant time Imam Bakhsh was perfectly in good physical and mental health. Consequently, once the appellants have successfully proved that the sale mutation in their favour was struck off by DDO (R) illegally without jurisdiction and that the respondents No. 2 to 9 had notice of such fact, then the sale deed in their favour automatically has to give way to the subject mutation. However, it was open for Imam Bakhsh to question such mutation on the stated ground before a Court of original civil jurisdiction which could have competently decided. This appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgments of the Courts below. No orders as to costs. ...Sardar Muhammad =VS= Imam Bakhsh, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (SC) 28] ....View Full Judgment