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.42---Records, alteration of---Acquiescence of the party seeking alteration---Scope and effect---Petitioners filed an application in the year 2017 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging two mutation, 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 being not maintainable---Constitutional petition was filed as said rejection order was concurred up to Board of Revenue---Held: 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 the element of acquiescence for having taken no steps for rectification /alteration of record since long---Astonishingly, the respondents' predecessor kept his relied document (the LC-9) of the year 1959 to himself and never sought to give effect to them during his lifetime and the respondents after his death gave effect to it in the year 2012, which clearly suggests that, regardless of the genuineness / veracity of the documents in his favour, the predecessor of respondents had acquiesced to the entries in favour of the petitioners for as long he was alive---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