Revenue record: Decree for specific performance cannot be directly implemented: LHC

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held the other day that a decree for specific performance cannot be directly implemented in the revenue record without the indulgence of the executing court.

The court observed that in order to get the title of the property on the basis of a decree for specific performance, the decree-holder has to file an execution petition.

The executing court in the execution of the decree shall execute the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder and deliver the possession in accordance with the agreement/decree, the court added.

The court observed that after the execution of the sale deed, the revenue authorities would be bound to give its effect in the revenue record and change entries in the revenue record in accordance with the rights of the parties as determined by the executing court.

The court passed this order on a petition of Razia Begum whose predecessor Abdul Majeed somehow succeeded to get incorporate a mutation during the pendency an execution petition.

The respondent Gulzar Ahmed challenged the decision of the respondent revenue officials before the Member Judicial, Board of Revenue (BoR) who set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the decision of the Member Judicial BoR before the LHC.

The court observed that by executing the decree for specific performance not only a sale deed is executed in favour of the decree-holder but the possession is delivered as well subject to conditions as mentioned in the agreement/decree, the court added.

The court held that the impugned order is well reasoned, justified and passed in accordance with law which does not call for any interference by this court.

The court observed that the petitioners’ counsel failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional defect in the findings of the order passed by respondent member BOR.

This court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, normally did not interfere in the findings unless a case of a grave miscarriage of justice was made out, the court observed and added it has seen no illegality, infirmity and jurisdictional defect in the impugned order.

The court, therefore, dismissed the petition and observed that the instant petition was misconceived and not maintainable.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024