خسرہ گرداوری کا اندراج اگر درست نہ ہو تو متاثرہ فریق کو دعوی استقرار حق دائر کرنا ہوتا ہے
2005 YLR 890
(a) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 43(a), 45 & 53‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Periodical record (Khasra Girdawari), correction of‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑If entry in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari), was not correct, then the aggrieved party should have filed declaratory suit as visualized by S. 53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967‑‑ Variation in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari) can be made with respect to undisputed acquisition of interest in tern of S.43(a) of West Pakistan Land Revenue, Act, 1967, on the basis of facts proved or admitted‑‑‑Such corrections are permissible with the consent of all parties or which are supported by a decree or order binding c parties and not otherwise.
(b) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.42‑‑‑Declaration of title‑‑‑Revenue Record, correction of‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Effect of provisions of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, may not be exclusion of jurisdiction of Revenue officials from exercising their authority to correct Revenue Record for correction of error occurred on account of slip of pen or clerical mistakes‑‑‑Wisdom behind it, provisions of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, is that Revenue official should take their hands off from correcting the longstanding entries especially those reflected in successive Jamabandis‑‑‑No disputed entry in Jamabandi can be altered, whether on the ground of mistake or of fraud, except on the basis of an obvious clerical mistake or a patent fact, requiring no elaborate inquire, for their veracity.
(c) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Land Records Manual, Chap. 7, cls.7.28 & 7.30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Correction of Revenue Record‑‑‑Non‑filing of civil suit‑‑‑Petitioner was aggrieved of, entry in Khasra Girdawari of crop of Kharif, 1976‑‑‑Petitioner assailed the disputed entry before Revenue authorities in the year, 2000‑‑‑Collector relying on inquiry report of Revenue staff, accepted the application of petitioner and ordered for correction of the entry‑‑‑Respondent assailed the order of Collector before Appellate Authority but having been unsuccessful, filed revision application before Board of Revenue which was allowed and the order for correction of entry was set aside‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was that any error occurring in Revenue Record could be ordered to be corrected by Revenue hierarchy without resort to declaratory suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Entry in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1976, must have been incorporated in not less than six Jamabandis till the time, the petitioner filed application for its correction in the year, 2000‑‑‑In presence of dispute regarding possession as canvassed by the parties in the case present, correction could not have been ordered in summary proceedings on a miscellaneous application and that too on the basis of one sided report of Revenue field staff regarding‑ which no right of rebuttal was afforded to the adversaries the persons against whom the report was made‑‑‑Suit under S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, in the form of declaration had to be usual suit, the one under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877‑‑ Decision on such suit could only be given after recording of evidence and affording the parties full opportunity of evidence for substantiating their respective stance‑‑‑Such opportunity of recording of evidence could not be afforded to the parties on application for correction of Revenue Record under S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, as the proceedings were summary in nature‑‑‑Board of Revenue acted within the compass of its jurisdiction fixed by law and did not commit any illegality amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑ Disputed entry of Khasra Gardawari incorporated in Jamabandi could only be corrected through a decree of Court and not by an order of Collector after lapse of more than two decades‑‑‑Order passed by Board of Revenue was just and fair and the same was not declared as void‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334 and Ahmad Din v. Akbar Ali 1992 CLC 608 ref.
(d) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Specifc Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120‑‑‑Declaration of title‑‑‑Revenue Record,correction of‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Disputed entry of Khasra Girdawari, was assailed before Revenue Authorities, 24 years after its incorporation in Revenue Record‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Limitation for filing declaratory suit under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the one under S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, started from the date of accrual of cause of action under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908‑‑‑Entertaining of such application for correction of record after lapse of 24 years created an anomalous situation whereunder the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction were deprived of their jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute due to extinction of time and such exercise was done on a miscellaneous application through summary proceedings.
(e) Land Records Manual‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Chap.7, cl. 7.30‑‑‑Entries in Register Haqdaran Zamin‑‑‑Correction‑‑‑Entry/ sanctioning of mutation for correction of entries in Jamabandi is prohibited under chap. 7, Cl. 7.30 of Land Records Manual‑‑‑Clerical corrections, in consequence of patent facts are allowed.
Mehboob Asghar Sheikh for Petitioner.
ABDUL HAMID VS SIKANDAR ALI2005 Y L R 890[Lahore]Before Muhammad Muzammal Khan, JABDUL HAMID‑‑‑PetitionerVersusSIKANDAR ALI and 3 others‑‑‑RespondentsW.P. No. 18917 of 2004, decided on 25/11/2004.
خسرہ گرداوری کا اندراج اگر درست نہ ہو تو متاثرہ فریق کو دعوی استقرار حق دائر کرنا ہوتا ہے
2005 YLR 890
(a) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 43(a), 45 & 53‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Periodical record (Khasra Girdawari), correction of‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑If entry in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari), was not correct, then the aggrieved party should have filed declaratory suit as visualized by S. 53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967‑‑ Variation in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari) can be made with respect to undisputed acquisition of interest in tern of S.43(a) of West Pakistan Land Revenue, Act, 1967, on the basis of facts proved or admitted‑‑‑Such corrections are permissible with the consent of all parties or which are supported by a decree or order binding c parties and not otherwise.
(b) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.42‑‑‑Declaration of title‑‑‑Revenue Record, correction of‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Effect of provisions of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, may not be exclusion of jurisdiction of Revenue officials from exercising their authority to correct Revenue Record for correction of error occurred on account of slip of pen or clerical mistakes‑‑‑Wisdom behind it, provisions of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, is that Revenue official should take their hands off from correcting the longstanding entries especially those reflected in successive Jamabandis‑‑‑No disputed entry in Jamabandi can be altered, whether on the ground of mistake or of fraud, except on the basis of an obvious clerical mistake or a patent fact, requiring no elaborate inquire, for their veracity.
(c) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Land Records Manual, Chap. 7, cls.7.28 & 7.30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Correction of Revenue Record‑‑‑Non‑filing of civil suit‑‑‑Petitioner was aggrieved of, entry in Khasra Girdawari of crop of Kharif, 1976‑‑‑Petitioner assailed the disputed entry before Revenue authorities in the year, 2000‑‑‑Collector relying on inquiry report of Revenue staff, accepted the application of petitioner and ordered for correction of the entry‑‑‑Respondent assailed the order of Collector before Appellate Authority but having been unsuccessful, filed revision application before Board of Revenue which was allowed and the order for correction of entry was set aside‑‑‑Plea raised by the petitioner was that any error occurring in Revenue Record could be ordered to be corrected by Revenue hierarchy without resort to declaratory suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Entry in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1976, must have been incorporated in not less than six Jamabandis till the time, the petitioner filed application for its correction in the year, 2000‑‑‑In presence of dispute regarding possession as canvassed by the parties in the case present, correction could not have been ordered in summary proceedings on a miscellaneous application and that too on the basis of one sided report of Revenue field staff regarding‑ which no right of rebuttal was afforded to the adversaries the persons against whom the report was made‑‑‑Suit under S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, in the form of declaration had to be usual suit, the one under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877‑‑ Decision on such suit could only be given after recording of evidence and affording the parties full opportunity of evidence for substantiating their respective stance‑‑‑Such opportunity of recording of evidence could not be afforded to the parties on application for correction of Revenue Record under S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, as the proceedings were summary in nature‑‑‑Board of Revenue acted within the compass of its jurisdiction fixed by law and did not commit any illegality amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑ Disputed entry of Khasra Gardawari incorporated in Jamabandi could only be corrected through a decree of Court and not by an order of Collector after lapse of more than two decades‑‑‑Order passed by Board of Revenue was just and fair and the same was not declared as void‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334 and Ahmad Din v. Akbar Ali 1992 CLC 608 ref.
(d) West PakistanLand Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.53‑‑‑Specifc Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120‑‑‑Declaration of title‑‑‑Revenue Record,correction of‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Disputed entry of Khasra Girdawari, was assailed before Revenue Authorities, 24 years after its incorporation in Revenue Record‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Limitation for filing declaratory suit under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the one under S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, started from the date of accrual of cause of action under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908‑‑‑Entertaining of such application for correction of record after lapse of 24 years created an anomalous situation whereunder the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction were deprived of their jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute due to extinction of time and such exercise was done on a miscellaneous application through summary proceedings.
(e) Land Records Manual‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Chap.7, cl. 7.30‑‑‑Entries in Register Haqdaran Zamin‑‑‑Correction‑‑‑Entry/ sanctioning of mutation for correction of entries in Jamabandi is prohibited under chap. 7, Cl. 7.30 of Land Records Manual‑‑‑Clerical corrections, in consequence of patent facts are allowed.
Mehboob Asghar Sheikh for Petitioner.
ORDER
This Constitutional petition seeks order, dated 14‑9‑2004 passed by the learned Member (Judicial‑II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.3), to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was accepted and orders passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner, Pakpattan Sharif impugned therein, were set aside.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Pakpattan Sharif, for correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari for the crop Kharif 1976 of land measuring 103 Kanals, 19 Marlas, claiming himself to be a lessee of Auqaf Department situated in Chak Muhammad Pur Jagir, District Pakpattan Sharif, which along with some other land was resumed in favour of Punjab Lands Commission under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The resumption was contested by the Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab, but it remained with Punjab Lands Commission vide judgment, dated 22‑6‑1999 delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Since the resumed land was to be allotted to those tenants/cultivators who were in possession of it during the crop Rabi 1975‑76, Kharif 1976 in terms of Notification No.2005‑99/1414‑CLI, dated 12‑5‑1999 issued by the Punjab Lands Commission, petitioner was permitted to seek the above noted correction after lapse of 24 years in, the year, 2000 as on the basis of existing Revenue Record he was not eligible to allotment. The Collector concerned after requisitioning the report from the Revenue field staff opted to accept the application of the petitioner relying on an inquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 20‑9‑2000 and directed the prayed correction vide his order, dated 11‑10‑2000.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan against the order of Collector directing correction of Khasra Girdawari, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 7‑6‑2001. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a revision before respondent No.3 (ROR No.915 of 2001), which was accepted by him vide order, dated 11‑6‑2002, remanding the case for fresh decision.
4. Petitioner felt aggrieved of the decision of respondent No. 3 and consequently filed Review Petition No. 137 of 2002 for recall of order, dated 11‑6‑2002. Respondent No.3 on 15‑6‑2004 disposed of the review petition recalling the remand order and directing his office to fit the main revision petition (ROR No.915 of 2001) for rehearing and decision on merit. This time, respondent No.3 through his order dated 14‑9‑2004 allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order granting correction of Khasra Girdawari of the crop of Kharif 1976. This order has been challenged through instant constitutional petition with the prayer noted above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 on the basis of incorrect premises reversed the concurrent orders of Collector and Additional Commissioner, whereas the correction of Revenue Record by the Collector was admissible under law. According to him, any error occurring in Revenue Record could be ordered to be corrected by the Revenue hierarchy without resort to suit envisaged by section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. He further argued that the revenue field staff and Assistant Commissioner after due inquiry/probe reported to the Collector that the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the land subject of dispute and the entries regarding relevant crops in Khasra Girdawari were factually incorrect and in view of this report respondent No.3 had no material before him to do away the orders impugned before him. It was also argued that petitioner fulfilled the conditions of allotment of the resumed land being lessee/cultivator of the same during Kharif 1976, but he was deprived of his right on account of lapse and incorrect entries in the Revenue Record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that correction of Revenue Record could have been ordered at any time and as in the case in hand, petitioner was not aware of the adverse entries, hence he on gaining knowledge tiled the application for this purpose to the competent authority, which was rightly allowed. He is support of his arguments referred to the cases of Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs (1992 SCMR 2334) and Ahmad Din v. Akbar Ali (1992 CLC 608).
6. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, according to the reports of the Revenue field staff, one Allah Ditta was in possession of the land in question under Abdul Hameed, the petitioner, meaning thereby that petitioner was not himself a tenant or a cultivator of the land in question. According to entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the crop Kharif 1976, respondent No. 1 was in possession of the land. Now if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that this entry in the Khasra Girdawari was not correct, even then petitioner should have filed a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as visualized by section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which reads as under:‑‑
"If any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record‑of‑rights (or in a periodical record) as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877). "
Effect of provisions of section 53 above reproduced, may not be exclusion of jurisdiction of Revenue officials from, exercising of their authority to correct the Revenue Record for correction of errors occurred on account of slip of pen or clerical mistakes, but it do have a wisdom behind it that Revenue officials to take off their hands from correcting the longstanding entries especially, those are reflected in successive Jamabandis. Entry in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1976 must have been incorporated in not less than six Jamabandis till the time the petitioner filed an application for its correction in the year, 2000. Above all, in presence of dispute regarding possession as canvassed by the, parties in the case in hand, correction under discussion could not have been ordered in summary proceedings on miscellaneous application and that too on the basis of one sided report of the Revenue field staff regarding which no right of rebuttal was afforded to the adversaries/the persons against whom the report was remitted. Suit under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 in form of declaration, has to be usual suit, the one under section 42 of the C Specific Relief Act, 1877, decision where over can only be given after recording of evidence and affording the parties full,, opportunity for substantiating their respective stance, whereas such opportunity, cannot be afforded to the parties on an' application for correction of Revenue Record under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as these proceedings are summary in nature.
7. Limitation of filing declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the one under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 starts from the date of accrual of cause of action under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and thus entertainment of application of Revenue Record after lapse of 24 years creates an anomalous situation where under the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction are deprived of their, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute due to extinction of time but such exercise could be done on a miscellaneous application through summary proceedings.
8. The correction prayed by the petitioner was neither incidental occurring out of slip of pen nor the same was clerical, hence even on the basis of ratio of judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, could not have been ordered to be corrected in the manner done by the Collector concerned. Proceedings in the Revenue hierarchy clearly concluded that petitioner wanted correction through substitution of his name in place of respondent No.1 as cultivator/tenant which was also disputed by the contesting respondents and in this eventuality controversy could not have been put to rest unless a full‑fledged trial in terms of section 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 had been held. To my mind, proceedings undertaken by Collector were not only opposed to the provisions of section 53 of the Act (ibid) but were also in annoyance of the principle of natural justice as the contestants of the petitioner were not given any opportunity of rebutting the field staff reports/inquiry report of Assistant Commissioner. It is also not imaginable that an entry in the year, 1976 in the Khasra Girdawari, which was reflected in successive Jamabandis could be struck down by the Collector without resort to proper adjudication. My this view gets strength from instructions contained in the Land Record Manual whereby in Chapter 7 dealing under the head of "Records of Rights and Periodical Records under clause 7.28 cases where no Dakhil Kharij are necessary, relying on Punjab Government letter No. 144‑Rev, dated 23‑12‑1914, directions were given for corrections in different columns of "Register Haqdaran Zamin". It reads as under:‑‑
"(i) The entries in columns 1 and 2 of the Register Haqdaran Zamin as given in paragraph 7.40 infra.
(ii) In column 3‑‑
(a) the name or the father's name when it has been legally changed, but in such case the former name shall continue to be shown also, preceded by the word alias' or "formerly" (urf),
(b) the military rank or civil title.
(c) the place of residence.
(d) the omission of the word "minor" and of the name of guardian under paragraph 7.41 infra,
(e) the recasting of the form of the details of internal shares without changing the shares.
(iii) In column 4‑
(a) undisputed entries relating to cultivation by an owner shown in column 3, or by a non‑occupancy tenant holding under a lease, whether oral or written, for a period not exceeding one year;
(b) entries relating to tenants described otherwise than in these terms may be varied without a Dakhil Kharij order only to the extent that entries relating to owners may be varied under clause (ii) above.
Besides above reproduced instructions, the other relevant clause of the manual is 7.30 which prohibits entry/sanctioning of Mutation for correction of entries in the "Jamabandis" and allows only clerical corrections to be made, in consequence of patent facts. It is to the following effect:‑‑
"7.30. Mutation of correction not to be made. When an entry has been incorporated in the (Jamabandi) a mutation should not be entered up or sanctioned for the purpose of correcting it, except to correct a clerical error (where this cannot be done by a Fard Badar) or in consequence of a patent fact. The party aggrieved by such an entry must seek his remedy by suit. (L.L.T. 1934, page 2)."
Besides above, the other relevant provisions in section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, according to which variation in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari) could be made with respect of undisputed acquisition of interest in terms of section 43(a) of the Act, on the basis of facts proved or admitted. Likewise, such corrections were permissible with the consent of all .the parties or which are supported by a decree or order binding on parties and not otherwise. This all brings me to hold that no disputed entry in a Jamabandi could be altered whether on the ground of mistake or of fraud except on the basis of an obvious clerical error or a patent facts, requiring no elaborate enquiry for their establishment. The disputed entries of crop Kahrif 1976 having been incorporated in Jamabandis could only be corrected through a decree of the Court and not by an order of the Collector after lapse of a period more than two decades.
9. For the reasons noted above, respondent No.3 acted within the compass of his jurisdiction fixed by law and he did not commit any illegality amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned even otherwise being just and fair cannot be declared to be void, thus this petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.H./A‑336/LPetition dismissed.
This Constitutional petition seeks order, dated 14‑9‑2004 passed by the learned Member (Judicial‑II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.3), to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was accepted and orders passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner, Pakpattan Sharif impugned therein, were set aside.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Pakpattan Sharif, for correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari for the crop Kharif 1976 of land measuring 103 Kanals, 19 Marlas, claiming himself to be a lessee of Auqaf Department situated in Chak Muhammad Pur Jagir, District Pakpattan Sharif, which along with some other land was resumed in favour of Punjab Lands Commission under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The resumption was contested by the Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab, but it remained with Punjab Lands Commission vide judgment, dated 22‑6‑1999 delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Since the resumed land was to be allotted to those tenants/cultivators who were in possession of it during the crop Rabi 1975‑76, Kharif 1976 in terms of Notification No.2005‑99/1414‑CLI, dated 12‑5‑1999 issued by the Punjab Lands Commission, petitioner was permitted to seek the above noted correction after lapse of 24 years in, the year, 2000 as on the basis of existing Revenue Record he was not eligible to allotment. The Collector concerned after requisitioning the report from the Revenue field staff opted to accept the application of the petitioner relying on an inquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 20‑9‑2000 and directed the prayed correction vide his order, dated 11‑10‑2000.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Multan against the order of Collector directing correction of Khasra Girdawari, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 7‑6‑2001. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a revision before respondent No.3 (ROR No.915 of 2001), which was accepted by him vide order, dated 11‑6‑2002, remanding the case for fresh decision.
4. Petitioner felt aggrieved of the decision of respondent No. 3 and consequently filed Review Petition No. 137 of 2002 for recall of order, dated 11‑6‑2002. Respondent No.3 on 15‑6‑2004 disposed of the review petition recalling the remand order and directing his office to fit the main revision petition (ROR No.915 of 2001) for rehearing and decision on merit. This time, respondent No.3 through his order dated 14‑9‑2004 allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order granting correction of Khasra Girdawari of the crop of Kharif 1976. This order has been challenged through instant constitutional petition with the prayer noted above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 on the basis of incorrect premises reversed the concurrent orders of Collector and Additional Commissioner, whereas the correction of Revenue Record by the Collector was admissible under law. According to him, any error occurring in Revenue Record could be ordered to be corrected by the Revenue hierarchy without resort to suit envisaged by section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. He further argued that the revenue field staff and Assistant Commissioner after due inquiry/probe reported to the Collector that the petitioner was in actual physical possession of the land subject of dispute and the entries regarding relevant crops in Khasra Girdawari were factually incorrect and in view of this report respondent No.3 had no material before him to do away the orders impugned before him. It was also argued that petitioner fulfilled the conditions of allotment of the resumed land being lessee/cultivator of the same during Kharif 1976, but he was deprived of his right on account of lapse and incorrect entries in the Revenue Record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that correction of Revenue Record could have been ordered at any time and as in the case in hand, petitioner was not aware of the adverse entries, hence he on gaining knowledge tiled the application for this purpose to the competent authority, which was rightly allowed. He is support of his arguments referred to the cases of Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs (1992 SCMR 2334) and Ahmad Din v. Akbar Ali (1992 CLC 608).
6. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, according to the reports of the Revenue field staff, one Allah Ditta was in possession of the land in question under Abdul Hameed, the petitioner, meaning thereby that petitioner was not himself a tenant or a cultivator of the land in question. According to entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the crop Kharif 1976, respondent No. 1 was in possession of the land. Now if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that this entry in the Khasra Girdawari was not correct, even then petitioner should have filed a suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as visualized by section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which reads as under:‑‑
"If any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record‑of‑rights (or in a periodical record) as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877). "
Effect of provisions of section 53 above reproduced, may not be exclusion of jurisdiction of Revenue officials from, exercising of their authority to correct the Revenue Record for correction of errors occurred on account of slip of pen or clerical mistakes, but it do have a wisdom behind it that Revenue officials to take off their hands from correcting the longstanding entries especially, those are reflected in successive Jamabandis. Entry in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1976 must have been incorporated in not less than six Jamabandis till the time the petitioner filed an application for its correction in the year, 2000. Above all, in presence of dispute regarding possession as canvassed by the, parties in the case in hand, correction under discussion could not have been ordered in summary proceedings on miscellaneous application and that too on the basis of one sided report of the Revenue field staff regarding which no right of rebuttal was afforded to the adversaries/the persons against whom the report was remitted. Suit under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 in form of declaration, has to be usual suit, the one under section 42 of the C Specific Relief Act, 1877, decision where over can only be given after recording of evidence and affording the parties full,, opportunity for substantiating their respective stance, whereas such opportunity, cannot be afforded to the parties on an' application for correction of Revenue Record under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, as these proceedings are summary in nature.
7. Limitation of filing declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the one under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 starts from the date of accrual of cause of action under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and thus entertainment of application of Revenue Record after lapse of 24 years creates an anomalous situation where under the Courts of ultimate jurisdiction are deprived of their, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute due to extinction of time but such exercise could be done on a miscellaneous application through summary proceedings.
8. The correction prayed by the petitioner was neither incidental occurring out of slip of pen nor the same was clerical, hence even on the basis of ratio of judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, could not have been ordered to be corrected in the manner done by the Collector concerned. Proceedings in the Revenue hierarchy clearly concluded that petitioner wanted correction through substitution of his name in place of respondent No.1 as cultivator/tenant which was also disputed by the contesting respondents and in this eventuality controversy could not have been put to rest unless a full‑fledged trial in terms of section 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 had been held. To my mind, proceedings undertaken by Collector were not only opposed to the provisions of section 53 of the Act (ibid) but were also in annoyance of the principle of natural justice as the contestants of the petitioner were not given any opportunity of rebutting the field staff reports/inquiry report of Assistant Commissioner. It is also not imaginable that an entry in the year, 1976 in the Khasra Girdawari, which was reflected in successive Jamabandis could be struck down by the Collector without resort to proper adjudication. My this view gets strength from instructions contained in the Land Record Manual whereby in Chapter 7 dealing under the head of "Records of Rights and Periodical Records under clause 7.28 cases where no Dakhil Kharij are necessary, relying on Punjab Government letter No. 144‑Rev, dated 23‑12‑1914, directions were given for corrections in different columns of "Register Haqdaran Zamin". It reads as under:‑‑
"(i) The entries in columns 1 and 2 of the Register Haqdaran Zamin as given in paragraph 7.40 infra.
(ii) In column 3‑‑
(a) the name or the father's name when it has been legally changed, but in such case the former name shall continue to be shown also, preceded by the word alias' or "formerly" (urf),
(b) the military rank or civil title.
(c) the place of residence.
(d) the omission of the word "minor" and of the name of guardian under paragraph 7.41 infra,
(e) the recasting of the form of the details of internal shares without changing the shares.
(iii) In column 4‑
(a) undisputed entries relating to cultivation by an owner shown in column 3, or by a non‑occupancy tenant holding under a lease, whether oral or written, for a period not exceeding one year;
(b) entries relating to tenants described otherwise than in these terms may be varied without a Dakhil Kharij order only to the extent that entries relating to owners may be varied under clause (ii) above.
Besides above reproduced instructions, the other relevant clause of the manual is 7.30 which prohibits entry/sanctioning of Mutation for correction of entries in the "Jamabandis" and allows only clerical corrections to be made, in consequence of patent facts. It is to the following effect:‑‑
"7.30. Mutation of correction not to be made. When an entry has been incorporated in the (Jamabandi) a mutation should not be entered up or sanctioned for the purpose of correcting it, except to correct a clerical error (where this cannot be done by a Fard Badar) or in consequence of a patent fact. The party aggrieved by such an entry must seek his remedy by suit. (L.L.T. 1934, page 2)."
Besides above, the other relevant provisions in section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, according to which variation in periodical record (Khasra Girdawari) could be made with respect of undisputed acquisition of interest in terms of section 43(a) of the Act, on the basis of facts proved or admitted. Likewise, such corrections were permissible with the consent of all .the parties or which are supported by a decree or order binding on parties and not otherwise. This all brings me to hold that no disputed entry in a Jamabandi could be altered whether on the ground of mistake or of fraud except on the basis of an obvious clerical error or a patent facts, requiring no elaborate enquiry for their establishment. The disputed entries of crop Kahrif 1976 having been incorporated in Jamabandis could only be corrected through a decree of the Court and not by an order of the Collector after lapse of a period more than two decades.
9. For the reasons noted above, respondent No.3 acted within the compass of his jurisdiction fixed by law and he did not commit any illegality amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned even otherwise being just and fair cannot be declared to be void, thus this petition has no merit in it and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
M.H./A‑336/LPetition dismissed.
0 Comments