GHULAM MUSTAFA vs GHULAM HAIDER Ss — 2025 PLD 152 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHULAM MUSTAFA VS GHULAM HAIDER Ss. 172(2)(ii),172 (2)(v), 172 (2) (vi) & 172(2)(xvi)---Gift-mutation, challenging of---Fraud alleged by the donor---Jurisdiction---Whether revenue authorities/courts or civil court had jurisdiction---Settlement Officer set-aside gift-mutation accepting application of the donor filed by him in his life ('the gift mutation-in-question') which findings were maintained upto the Board of Revenue---Donees (petitioners) challenged said orders---Held: The donor challenged the gift mutation-in-question by seeking its (mutation's) cancellation on the ground of fraud, which was contested by the two petitioners (who were sons of the donor from first wife) thus, resulting in controversial question of facts---Such disputes require adjudication through the presentation of evidence by both parties in support of their respective claims---Importantly, S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967') assigns certain matters to the jurisdiction of the revenue authority, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of civil court---Revenue authority has a limited scope of inquiry and does not function like a civil court concerning contested matters that necessitate the framing of issues and determination through evidence---Such matters fall solely within the jurisdiction of civil courts---Furthermore, S. 172(2)(xvi) of the Act 1967 leaves the adjudication of plea of fraud to the competence of civil court---In the present case, the revenue authorities (from settlement authority to the Senior Member Board of Revenue) vide impugned orders had decided controversial question of "fraud" in summary proceedings, which was excluded under clause (v) and clause(xvi) of S. 172(2) of the Act 1967 to the extent of first mutation of gift for which they had no jurisdiction---The revenue authority, under clauses (ii), (vi) and (xvi) of S. 172(2) of the Act 1967 was authorized to exercise its powers, which included compelling the discharge of any duties imposed by the Act 1967, or any other enactment for the time being in force, correcting entries in the record of rights, or addressing any claims to set aside on grounds other than "fraud"---High Court set-aside the impugned orders passed by revenue authorities while aggrieved legal heirs of donor (now deceased) were at liberty to seek their remedy before the plenary jurisdiction of the civil court---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

GHULAM MUSTAFA vs GHULAM HAIDER Ss — 2025 PLD 152 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD