Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1252
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1252. In this matter between the Petitioner and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq) DECISION DATE: 04-02-2026 TAGLINE: (1) Scope & contours of review jurisdiction Under Section 8 of The Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957; (2) Declaration of title, if so required, will be sought by the beneficiary from the Civil Court and not vice versa by the one who is deprived of inheritance share(s) or any other rights viz the property; (3) Mutation does not confer any right or title in favor of any party but constitutes merely an official record for fiscal purposes on the administrative side; CASE DETAILS: Land 10283/25 ============================================================ Judgment Sheet. IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Writ Petition No. 10283 of 2025.
Muhammad Athar Hannan & 03 others.
Versus.
Member Board of Revenue, Judicial-IV and 14 others.
J U D G M E N T.
Dates of Hearing. 16.07.2025, 24.07.2025, 24.10.2025, 24.11.2025 and 04.02.2026.
Petitioner by: M/s Asif Mehmood Cheema and Shamshad Ahmad Bajwa, Advocates.
Respondent No. 1 to 3 by: Mr. Imran Khan, A.A.G.
Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 & 11 to 14 by: M/s Hamid Iftikhar Panu & Fozia Bashir Ahmad Rana, Advocates.
Respondent No. 10 by: Nemo (Died issueless).
Respondent Nos. 13 & 14 by: M/s Junaid Jabbar Khan, Rana Tariq Masud, and Mian Abdul Jabbar, Advocates.
---------------------------------------------------------------
KHALID ISHAQ, J:- Through this Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the “Constitution”), the Petitioners have called into question the order dated 12.12.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No.1/Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, in Review Petition No. 360 of 2023, while exercising review jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 (“Act, 1957”). P a g e | 2 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
2. Brief submissions of the learned counsels for the Petitioners revolve around the scope and contours of review jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act, 1957; learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the scope of review in terms of Section 8 ibid is very limited and does not encompass the kind of exercise, which has been undertaken while passing the Impugned Order; contends that under the garb of review jurisdiction, Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore has re- written the order and re-framed the earlier opinion while reversing the order dated 13.10.2023 (“Revisional Order under Review”); adds that the Petitioners filed Revision Petition (RoR No.442 of 2023), under Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (“Act, 1967”), for laying challenge to the order dated 25.10.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala in favour of the Respondents, which RoR was allowed vide Revisional Order under Review; submits that there was no scope for reviewing the said order by virtue of Impugned Order. In support of their submissions learned counsels for the Petitioners have placed reliance on the judgments reported as “Hayat Muhammad through LRs. v. Muhammad Riaz” (2023 SCMR 2012), “Faqir Muhammad v. Khursheed Bibi and others” (2024 SCMR 107), “Muhammad Safeer and others v. Muhammad Azam and others” (PLD 2024 SC 838), “Abdul Majeed Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Ms. Maheen Begum and others” (2014 SCMR 1524), “Noor Muhammad, Lambardar v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others” (2003 SCMR 708), “Muhammad Din and 2 others v. Muhammad Amin and 8 others” (PLD 1994 SC 288), “Mst. Maryam Bibi and 3 others v. Faqir Khan and 4 others” (2011 YLR 880), “Muhammad Aslam v. M. Nazir Ahmad and others” (2012 YLR 1875), “Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N:W.F.P. Peshawar and 4 others” (PLD 1991 SC 531), “Ahmad Sikander v. Commissioner Inland Revenue, AEOI Zone, Lahore” (2025 SCMR 140) & “The P a g e | 3 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another v. Muhammad Yasir” (2025 SCMR 367). 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for Respondent Nos.4 to 9 and 11 to 14, apart from defending the Impugned Order on the touchstone of the contours of review jurisdiction, have also questioned the maintainability of this Constitutional Petition on the ground that since the entire edifice of the petitioners’ case is based on ‘mutations’, allegedly recorded in the revenue record by the revenue hierarchy, which revenue record is maintained for the fiscal purposes only, therefore, as per settled law on the subject that a mutation does not confer any title and as such, there is no title or right vesting in the Petitioners on the basis of mutations hence, the Petitioners are not ‘aggrieved persons’ in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution as no rights exist merely on the basis of mutations in issue, therefore, there is no infringement of any ‘right’ and hence the Impugned Order cannot be assailed by the Petitioners by way of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In order to substantiate respective submissions, learned counsels for the Respondents have relied upon “Muhammad Iqbal v. S.A.M Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 3 others” (PLD 1970 Lahore 614), “Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others” (PLD 1973 Lahore 495), “Rehmat Noor v. Zulqarnain” (2023 SCMR 1645), “Abdul Majeed and 6 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 2 others” (1999 SCMR 1245), “(Thakur) Nirman Singh and others v. Thakur Lal Budra Partab Narain Singh and others” (A.I.R. 1926 Privy Council 100), “Muhammad and others v. Sardul” (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lahore 472), “Mst. Aisha Bibi and others v. Muhammad and others” (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 371), “Lal and others v. Mian Dad and another” (1968 SCMR 842(2)), “Faqir Ali and others v. Sakina Bibi and others” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court P a g e | 4 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
85) & “Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd through Manager v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Islamabad” (PLD 2005 SC 842). 4. Learned counsels for Respondent Nos. 13 & 14 have largely adopted the submissions of learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and 11 to 14 and have placed further reliance on the judgments reported as “Wali Muhammad Khan and another v. Mst. Amina and others” (2018 SCMR 2080), “Atta Muhammad and others v. Mst. Munir Sultan (Deceased) through her LRs and others” (2021 SCMR 73), “Farhan Aslam and others v. Mst. Nuzba Shaheen and another” (2021 SCMR 179), “Muhammad Rafiq v. Mst. Ghulam Zohra Mai and another” (2023 SCMR 988) & “Zakia Begum and others v. Nasir-ul-Islam Khan and others” (2022 SCMR 2130). 5. Arguments heard. Record perused. 6. Though this Court is conscious that the jurisdiction being sought to be invoked through the case in hand i.e. jurisdiction of Judicial Review, does not envisage the determination of facts as this Court is a Court of law, however, considering the inextricably linked factual intricacies viz the legal questions raised by both sides, it is imperative to lay and appreciate certain facts, which may be summed up as under: a) One Mst. Sakina Bibi w/o Muhammad Hussain was owner in possession of land measuring 17-Kanals 01- Marla in Mauza Sambrial District Sialkot (the “Land”). Mst. Sakina Bibi had five sons: (Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Akbar) and two daughters: (Mst. Rahat Sultana and Mst. Shabnam Ghous). One of the sons, namely, Muhammad Akbar died during the lifetime of Mst. Sakina Bibi and was survived by Legal Heirs, the details whereof are neither disputed nor required for the purpose of the issue in hand; P a g e | 5 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
b) On 10.12.2014, three sons of Mst. Sakina Bibi i.e. Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Afzal & Muhammad Anwar (who shall hereinafter be referred to as “Beneficiaries”) appeared before the Revenue Officer concerned and got recorded family partition mutation No. 25094 (the “Partition Mutation”); three days thereafter, i.e. on 13.12.2014, a gift mutation No. 25100 (“Gift Mutation”) was also purportedly recorded regarding the entire Land in favour of the Beneficiaries, while excluding the other offsprings of Mst. Sakina Bibi i.e. Muhammad Ajmal, Muhammad Akbar’s LRs, Mst. Rahat Sultana and Mst. Shabnam Ghous. It is pertinent to point out here that both the aforesaid mutations i.e. Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation, were only recorded in the revenue record and were not sanctioned on the respective dates i.e. 10.12.2014 and 13.12.2014;
c) On having notice and knowledge of these disputed mutations, Muhammad Ajmal (son), Mst. Rahat Sultana and Mst. Shabnam Ghous (daughters) of Mst. Sakina Bibi filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial, alleging that the Gift Mutation has been brought about through fraud, misrepresentation and against the lawful consent of Mst. Sakina Bibi as she was subjected to uncalled for persuasions owing to her fragile status and position of being an uneducated lady of 80 years old. This application is available on record and depicts that it was filed on the same day, when purported Gift Mutation was recorded in the revenue record of the Land i.e. 13.12.2014;
d) The Assistant Commissioner concerned sought a report from the field staff, which was prepared and submitted on 15.12.2014. Considering the report of field staff, Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial passed the order P a g e | 6 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
dated 15.12.2014 whereby the previous position, prior to the Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation, was directed to be restored by cancellation of Partition Mutation No. 25094 and Gift Mutation No. 25100. Needless to observe that at this juncture, the impugned Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation were not even sanctioned;
e) Beneficiaries of the Gift Mutation (three sons of Mst. Sakina Bibi) filed an application for review of the order dated 15.12.2014. In order to proceed with the review application, the Revenue Officer recorded the statement of Mst. Sakina Bibi along-with statements of Beneficiaries, which statement is also on the record and reflects that like the earlier mutations i.e. the Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation, this statement was not recorded as required under Section 42(7) of the Act, 1967 since neither it was a common assembly/’Jalsa-e- Aam’ nor independent/respectable persons of the locality were present to identify and witness the proceedings. On the basis of this statement, an order dated 31.12.2014 was passed by the Revenue Officer to the effect of re- instatement of Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation, dated 10.12.2014 and 13.12.2014 respectively, however, these mutations were still not sanctioned in terms of provisions contained in Section 42(8) of the Act, 1967;
f) Undisputed record further reflects that on 02.05.2015 Mst. Sakina Bibi was once again produced before the Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial, where she made a statement that she is owner of the Land and wanted to transfer the Land in the name of all of the legal heirs in accordance with the Shariah & Law, without excluding any heir, however, owing to inadvertent error and misunderstanding, the Land has purportedly been gifted in the names of three sons only, which transaction was brought about against her will and wish, therefore, she P a g e | 7 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
requested for cancellation of the Gift Mutation and instructed for transfer of Land in favour of all of her offspring i.e. 04 sons and 02 daughters. The record further transpires that the Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial sought permission of the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala for review of the order dated 31.12.2014, whereby revival of Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation was effected/ordered. Record further depicts that the permission was granted vide order dated 05.06.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala. It is a matter of record that this order, granting permission for review of the order dated 31.12.2014 was never assailed by the Beneficiaries of the Gift Mutation, instead an application was filed by one of the Beneficiaries (Muhammad Anwar) before the District Collector for transfer of the case from Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial to the District Collector, Sialkot but the transfer application was dismissed by the District Collector, Sialkot vide order dated 08.09.2015 in the following terms: “8. In view of above, the instant petition is rejected with a direction to Assistant Commissioner/Sub- Divisional Collector Tehsil Sambrial to decide application pending before her in accordance with law keeping in view the above observation.”
g) The matter remained pending before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub Division Sambrial till 15.03.2017 when the said Assistant Commissioner decided the matter while observing that since Mst. Sakina Bibi has passed away during the pendency of the matter and respondents (Muhammad Anwar) produced a copy of civil suit, therefore, the following order was passed: P a g e | 8 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
" h) The order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Sub Division, Sambrial was challenged by the excluded and deprived legal heirs of Mst. Sakina Bibi by filing a revision petition under Section 164 of the Act, 1967 before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala which Revision was allowed vide order dated 10.05.2018 in the following terms: P a g e | 9 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
[Emphasis Supplied] i) The above clearly reflects that both the Impugned Mutations (the Partition Mutation and Gift Mutation) stood cancelled/nullified and that the Beneficiaries of the Impugned Gift Mutation had approached the Civil Court by filing a suit titled “Muhammad Anwar v. Sakina Bibi etc.” suing his own mother Mst. Sakina Bibi, from whom he (Plaintiff/Muhammad Anwar) claimed to have derived the benefit of Gift. The record further reflects that the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala was assailed by the Beneficiaries of the Gift Mutation by way of filing a revision petition i.e. RoR No. 1025 of 2018 before the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. This Revision Petition was dismissed in limine by the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 05.07.2018 (the “First Revisional Order”). P a g e | 10 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
j) The record also transpires that one of the legal heirs of Mst. Sakina Bibi i.e. Muhammad Ajmal sold his respective share of the Land inherited by him on the basis of Inheritance Mutation No. No. 30231 dated 05.07.2018 (the “Inheritance Mutation”) to a 3rd party i.e. Ch. Muhammad Liaqat Ali (respondent No.14) through mutation Nos. 30234 and 30244 dated 05.07.2018. Similarly, Mst. Nosheen and Ayesha (both daughters of Muhammad Akbar, the predeceased son of Mst. Sakina Bibi) also sold their respective share through mutation No. 30250 in favour of Liaqat Ali (respondent No.14), whereas, Mst. Neelum Shahzadi (daughter of Muhammad Akbar i.e. the predeceased son of Mst. Sakina Bibi) also sold her inheritance share through mutation No. 30251 dated 12.07.2018 in favour of Faisal Liaqat (respondent No.13); k) On 27.01.2022, after four (4) years of earlier orders, Inheritance Mutation and sales of the respective shares inherited by LRs, Muhammad Athar Hanan and Muhammad Rayan (Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2), both of whom are sons of Muhammad Anwar (One of the Beneficiaries of Gift Mutation, who filed the Suit mentioned above against his mother Mst. Sakina Bibi) and rest of the beneficiaries of the Gift Mutation, suddenly filed an appeal under Section 161 of the Act, 1967 before the Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial against the order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Revenue Officer Sambrial, by the dint whereof, Revenue Officer had cancelled Partition Mutation No. 25094 and Gift Mutation No. 25100 vide order dated 30.06.2018 and consequently Inheritance Mutation of Mst. Sakina Bibi was sanctioned. Along-with the appeal, the Appellants/Petitioners also filed application for condonation of delay. Said appeal was contested by the present respondents and sought its dismissal on the P a g e | 11 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
question of limitation as well as on merits, however, the Appeal filed by the present petitioners and other Beneficiaries of Gift Mutation was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2022 in the terms that order of the Revenue Officer dated 30.06.2018 viz cancellation of Mutation Nos. 25094 and 25100 was declared unlawful and consequently, all subsequent mutations were set-aside; l) At this juncture, subsequent purchasers of Land i.e. Faisal Liaqat and Ch. Liaqat Ali (respondent Nos. 13 & 14 of this petition) filed Revision Petition under Section 164 of the Act, 1967 before the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala against the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Sub Division, Sambrial. The said Revision was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2022 and consequently the order dated 26.05.2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial, was set aside, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court; m) This Revisional Order dated 25.10.2022, passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala was assailed by way of a revision petition filed by the present Petitioners under Section 164 of the Act, 1967 i.e. RoR No. 442 of 2023, before the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore which Revision Petition was allowed vide Revisional Order under Review in the following terms: “6. I have carefully considered arguments of counsels for the parties and have also perused record of case file along with impugned orders. From perusal of record, it reveals that controversy involved in this case hinges around sanction of gift mutation of Mst. Sakina Bibi and the matter remained pending for adjudication in different courts. This is second round of litigation in the Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore. In the earlier round, the revision petition was adjudicated upon by learned Member (Judicial-VII), P a g e | 12 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore which was decided vide order dated 05.07.2018 with the observation that the matter required recording of evidence therefore the parties were directed to approach civil court. So, the order dated 05.07.2018 was final and valid in the field passed by learned Member (Judicial-VII) Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby he set aside observation of Addl. Commissioner (Rev), Gujranwala Division regarding mutation No. 25094 and 25100 in his order dated 10.05.2018. Hence, any entry contrary to this order in record of rights is not only illegal rather warrants administrative action against the revenue functionaries who accorded sanction for such entry in the revenue record. Foregoing in view, the revision petition is accepted, order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Sambrial dated 25.06.2022 is upheld and impugned order dated 25.10.2022 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division is set aside. This case was reserved on 12.10.2023 for announcement of order which is being announced today. Parties be informed accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after completion.” n) Being aggrieved of this Revisional Order under Review, present respondents filed the Review Petition No. 360/2023 under Section 8 of the Act, 1957, which was allowed vide Impugned Order hence, this Constitutional Petition. 7. In view of the above facts, there are two questions which are placed for determination of this Court; Firstly: i. whether the Impugned Order can be assailed by the present Petitioners by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as the entire edifice of the purported rights of the petitioners and alleged infringement thereof, if any, is premised on Gift Mutation and since mutation does not confer any title, therefore, no right is infringed, thus, whether the Petitioners can be P a g e | 13 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
treated as ‘aggrieved person’ in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution? Secondly; ii. whether the Impugned Order can withstand the test of limited sphere and contours of review jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1957? 8. Based on able assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I was tempted to decide the first question first as this Court, as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan/Federal Constitutional Court are inundated with the Constitutional Petitions/CPLAs based on the disputes pertaining to and arising from the mutations entered in the revenue record, however, since the answer to this question might have ramifications on many other pending cases, which parties are not represented before this Court, therefore, exercising judicial restraint and considering that the petition in hand can be decided on the basis of answer to the second question framed above, therefore, following the well settled position of law that “If a case can be decided on other or narrower grounds, the Court will abstain from deciding the constitutional question” & “The Court will not decide a larger constitutional question than is necessary for the determination of the case”1, I am intentionally not deciding the first question for the time being and will decide the same in some other appropriate case. 9. For answering the Second question viz the contours of review jurisdiction in terms of Section 8 of the Act, 1957, the relevant provision i.e. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, 1957 is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
1 Fozia Mazhar v. Additional District Judge, Jhang and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 771); Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. (597 U.S. 215 (2022), Jurists Foundation through Chairman v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2020 SC 1) Meera Shafi v. Office of the Governor Punjab & others (2019 LHC 3402) / (PLD 2020 Lahore 54) & Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana’ (2015 SCMR 1739). P a g e | 14 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made , or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, [or for any other sufficient reason] desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass such decree or order as the circumstances of the case require. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. The above wording of the quoted provision reflects that the review jurisdiction conferred under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1957 is akin to the provisions of review contained in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC but the same is different from the wordings of some other statutory provisions of review. Section 8(1) ibid, encompasses three different grounds for filing a review i.e. (i): the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not in knowledge or access of the party which seeks to invoke the remedy of review, however, the twin preconditions, which are sine qua non for availing the review on this score are embodied in the provision i.e. the matter or evidence must not only be new but must be important for a just and lawful decision of the case and the party which seek to rely on such important matter or evidence must demonstrate that non presentation or production of such new and important matter or evidence had occurred despite due diligence of the party concerned. In the case in hand, this part of the provision is not attracted as the Review Petitioner did not rely upon discovery of ‘new and important matter’, which was not discussed or considered by the Revisional Court while passing the Revisional Order under Review; (ii) the second possible ground of review, as couched in Sub-section 8(1) ibid may be: some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; the third, but distinctive feature of the provision in issue is that the Board exercising the jurisdiction of review has been clothed P a g e | 15 W.P. No. 10283 of 2025.
and conferred with the authority and jurisdiction to pass an order in review if: (iii) the circumstances of the case require. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the opinion that that the touchstones (ii) & (iii), as explicated above, are attracted and applicable in the case in hand. Needless to observe that even otherwise, these two parts are not be treated or invoked disjunctively and separately from each other. The following…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.