KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs HAYAT KHAN S — 2026 CLC 307 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

KHAIR MUHAMMAD VS HAYAT KHAN S.45---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Entries, alteration of---Aggrieved party not intimated---Scope and effect---Petitioners filed an application in the year 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging two mutations being attested in the year 2012 which essentially changed/altered the earlier entries having been initially incorporated in the year 1929---Said application was rejected being barred by limitation---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Case of the petitioners was that the longstanding entries in their names consistently coming from 1929/30 have been altered on the basis of fake and fraudulent documents; that these attestations in the revenue record were made behind their back in the year 2012; that they acquired knowledge about the said alteration of their longstanding entries in the year 2017 and immediately challenged the same---Validity---From perusal of record it is clear that entries in favour of the petitioners were being consistently reflected in the revenue record since 1929-30---Admittedly, said longstanding entries in their favour were altered in the year 2012 on the basis of provisional allotment Form LC-9 dated 21.10.1959 and LC-11 dated nil---In fact, the respondents first entered and attested Mutation No. 3507 on 10.03.2012 in favour of their predecessor and then through inheritance Mutation No. 3553 dated 07.04.2012 became owners themselves---There is nothing on record to establish that before altering the said longstanding entries, the petitioners were put on notice---As such it is only natural that petitioners would learn about the said change only when any interference was made in their possession or they were informed by someone---In absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioners when they assert knowledge from 2017 when they immediately challenged the altering/disputed mutations before the revenue hierarchy---Said aspect also needs consideration and, in such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is valid and needs to be properly addressed after affording the proper opportunity of hearing as required by Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Respondents (revenue fora) ignored this aspect of the case and rejected petitioners' application on the ground of limitation, holding that they could not challenge the entries---Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents (revenue fora) were against the law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice---High Court set-aside the impugned orders and the matter was remanded to respondent / Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs HAYAT KHAN S — 2026 CLC 307 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC