IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Atta Bandial 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2020. 
(Against the judgment dated 14.1.2020 passed by the 
Lahore High Court Multan Bench in CR No.903-D of 2009) 
 
 
Sardar Muhammad and others. 
  
 
       … Appellant 
Versus 
 
Imam Bakhsh (decd) thr. LRs and others. 
        … Respondents  
 
 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
: 
Mr. Ghulam Nabi, ASC.  
 
 
 
For the Respondents 3-9: 
: 
Malik Javed Akhtar Wains, ASC. 
 
 
 
For the LRs of Respondents 
No. 1 and 2: 
: 
Ex parte. 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
15.12.2020 
 
Judgment 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J. This appeal arises from the judgment of the 
Lahore High Court whereby the said Court while reversing the concurrent 
findings of the Courts below, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant 
against the respondents seeking setting aside of orders dated 26.3.2002 
and 19.8.2003 passed by the Deputy District Officer (DDO) & Executive 
District Offer (Revenue) (EDO) respectively. Cancellation of registered sale 
deed dated 29.3.2002 executed by one Imam Bakhsh predecessor in 
interest of respondent No.1, in favour of predecessor in interest of 
respondents No. 2 to 9 was also sought.  
2. 
 
We are informed that the legal heirs of respondent No.1 and 
Respondent No. 2, in person, have refused to receive the notices. As a 
result, they are proceeded against ex parte. 
CA 346 of 2020   
2
3. 
 
Briefly, on 8.3.2002 Imam Bakhsh filed an appeal before the 
Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran seeking cancellation of sale 
mutation No. 4855 dated 28.2.2002 effected in favour of appellants on the 
ground that it was procured through misrepresentation and fraud. The 
DDO (R) Lodhran, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 26.3.2002 
cancelled the mutation by holding that Imam Bakhsh was an old and sick 
man from whom lying was not expected and, therefore, his contention that 
the mutation was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud is to be 
given due weight. The record further reflects that on 29.3.2002, merely 
three days after the cancellation of sale mutation in favour of appellant, the 
said Imam Bakhsh, through registered sale deed, conveyed the same 
property to respondents No. 2 to 9. The appellant on 30.3.2002 challenged 
the said order of the DDO (R) before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) 
who vide order dated 19.8.2003 rejected the appeal on the ground that a 
registered sale deed could only be cancelled by a Court of competent 
jurisdiction. This gave rise to the present appellant to file a suit against the 
respondents challenging the order dated 26.3.2002 of DDO (R) and order 
dated 19.8.2003 of the EDO (R) alongwith seeking cancellation of the 
registered sale deed. The trial Court on 28.10.2008 decreed the suit as 
prayed for. Respondents No. 2 to 9 filed appeal which did not find favour 
with the appellate Court and was dismissed on 4.9.2009. The respondents 
thereafter filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court which after 
hearing the parties, was allowed through the impugned judgment by setting 
aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants while inviting our attention 
to mutation No. 4855 (at page 83) contended that the said mutation was 
carried out in jalsa-e-aam in presence of two witnesses viz. Muhammad 
Akmal and Muhammad Nawaz which records unequivocal sale of the 
subject land in favour of the appellant by the respondent Imam Bakhsh 
CA 346 of 2020   
3
against the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and such mutation could 
not have been cancelled by the DDO(R) on assumptions and presumptions. 
Per counsel, since the record did not require any rectification, therefore, the 
jurisdiction of the DDO (R) was not attracted. It was contended that the 
plea of fraud requires adjudication through evidence, a process which could 
not be adopted by the DDO (R) as proceedings before him are summary in 
nature. It was next contended that the findings of the learned High Court 
that the mutation was not effected in jalsa-e-aam are contrary to record. It 
was further contended that Imam Bakhsh never disputed the mutation 
entry but challenged it on the ground of fraud, therefore, the burden was 
upon Imam Bakhsh to prove the fraud, consequently, the appellants could 
not be non-suited by placing burden to prove the sale mutation. It was also 
contended that 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 and such principle was totally ignored.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
contends that the findings of the DDO (R) declaring the mutation entry No. 
4855 as procured through fraud and misrepresentation has attained 
finality and, therefore, at this juncture could not be interfered with. It was 
next contended that the respondents have purchased the subject land with 
clear title through a registered conveyance deed after the earlier sale 
mutation was cancelled and being bona fide purchasers, their sale deed 
was rightly restored by the High Court and such findings do not require 
any interference. It was lastly contended that the appellants have totally 
failed to prove the oral sale agreement which resulted mutation No. 4855 
and has further failed to bring into the witness box one of the attesting 
witness and the concerned Tehsildar who recorded the mutation entry.  
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties 
and have minutely perused the record. The primary question which 
CA 346 of 2020   
4
requires our attention is as to whether the DDO (R) had the power to strike 
off a sale mutation carried out in a jalsa-e-aam in the presence of witnesses 
on the ground that such sale was procured through misrepresentation and 
fraud and if the answer is in the negative, whether the subsequent sale 
deed in the peculiar circumstances of this case would fall to the ground.  It 
has been repeatedly held, and the law itself provides that the proceedings 
before the Revenue Officer or before the Revenue Courts are summary in 
nature and, therefore, complicated questions of law and disputed question 
of fact are not to be adjudicated in the hierarchy. The determination of 
complicated questions of law and disputed questions of fact fall within the 
sole domain of the civil Court. The plea of the respondents that the 
mutation entry No. 4855 was procured through fraud, in our opinion, could 
not have been decided in proceedings which are summary in nature as 
such controversy requires adjudication by allowing the parties to adduce 
evidence in support of their respective claims. There is no doubt in our 
minds that the DDO (R) transgressed his limits by declaring mutation No. 
4855 as having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.  
7. 
 
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. Besides, Section 172(2)(xvi) of the Act, 1967 
leaves the adjudication of plea of fraud to the competence of the civil 
courts. Resultantly, once the appellants have successfully proved that the 
CA 346 of 2020   
5
sale mutation in their favour was struck off by DDO (R) illegally without 
jurisdiction and that the respondents No. 2 to 9 before purchasing the 
subject property had notice of such fact, then the sale deed in their favour 
automatically has to give way to the subject mutation no sooner it is 
revived. Reference can be made to the case of Noor Muhammad vs. Allah 
Ditta (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 198), Fida Hussain vs. Abdul Aziz (PLD 
2005 Supreme Court 343), Abad Muhammad (thr. LRs) vs. Mst. Sakina and 
another (PLJ 1987 (d) Revenue 22) and Mst. Surraiya Bano vs. Nazia Bano 
(1996 CLC 1690).   
8. 
 
Additionally, the High Court against all the settled principles of 
law, has very lightly brushed aside the concurrent findings of the Courts 
below where it was specifically taken note of the fact that after three days of 
the cancellation of such mutation, the respondent Imam Bakhsh has sold 
out the property to the respondents coupled with the statement of DW-1 
who categorically stated that when they purchased the subject land from 
Imam Bakhsh on 29.3.2002 through sale deed, he was hardly of 65 years, 
mentally fit, with the addition that his father in whose name the sale deed 
was executed by Imam Bakhsh had helped Imam Bakhsh in pursuing the 
appeal before the DDO (R) seeking cancellation of subject mutations in 
favour of appellants. Thus, 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 
CA 346 of 2020   
6
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 such lis.  
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, 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.            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
  
 
 
Islamabad, the 
15th December, 2020 
A.Rehman  
 
Judge 
 
 
Approved for Reporting.