وفاقی آئینی عدالت نے 100 سال سے زائد پرانے زمین کے انتقال کو ریکارڈ میں درج کرنے کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
وفاقی آئینی عدالت کے فیصلے کے مطابق درخواست گزاروں نے 100 سال بعد پہلی بار 2020ء میں ان انتقالات کو سرکاری ریکارڈ میں درج کرانے کے لیے رجوع کیا۔
فیصلے کے مطابق طویل مدت گزرنے کے بعد اب ریکارڈ میں تبدیلی کو محض معمولی غلطی قرار دے کر ٹھیک نہیں کیا جا سکتا، ایک صدی کے دوران اس زمین کے کئی نئے مالک بن چکے ہوں گے، جن کا حق متاثر ہو سکتا ہے۔
عدالتی فیصلے کے مطابق ریونیو افسر کا کام صرف ریکارڈ رکھنا ہے، وہ زمین کی ملکیت کے جھگڑوں کا فیصلہ کرنے کا اختیار نہیں رکھتا۔
فیصلے کے مطابق پنجاب لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ کے تحت ریونیو حکام وہی غلطی درست کر سکتے ہیں، جس پر کوئی بڑا تنازع نہ ہو، زمین کی اصل ملکیت کا فیصلہ کرنا صرف شواہد ریکارڈ کرکے دیوانی عدالت کا کام ہے۔
درخواست گزاروں کے بزرگ اپنی زندگی میں یا بعد میں 2020ء تک خاموش کیوں رہے؟ جب معاملہ پیچیدہ ہو جائے اور شواہد کی ضرورت ہو تو ہائیکورٹ رٹ پٹیشن میں اس کا فیصلہ نہیں کر سکتی، یہ ٹرائل کورٹ کا کام ہے۔
وفاقی آئینی عدالت نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ اور بورڈ آف ریونیو کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے درخواست خارج کر دی۔
کیس 1907 اور 1913 کے ان زمین کے انتقالات سے متعلق تھا، جن پر اس وقت عمل درآمد نہیں ہو سکا تھا، درخواست گزاروں کے آباؤ اجداد کے حق میں یہ انتقالات ایک صدی قبل سول کورٹ کی ڈگری پر منظور ہوئے تھے
The law must have envisaged and provided an appropriate remedy even in such a situation. It is thus found that sections 42, 44, and 52 of the Act collectively regulate the preparation, evidentiary value, and correction of revenue records. Section 42 provides for the preparation and maintenance of the Record-of-Rights for each estate, detailing the names of landowners, tenants, and other right-holders, along with the nature and extent of their respective interests and the liabilities attached to the land. Section 44 deals with the determination of disputes arising during the preparation, revision, or making of the Record-of-Rights, or in the course of any inquiry under Chapter VI of the Act relating to the Recordof-Rights and periodical records. Once such an inquiry is completed and the entries are recorded in the revenue record, a presumption of truth attaches thereto under section 52 of the Act, which continues until the contrary is proved or new entries are lawfully substituted. To dislodge this presumption, a remedy is provided under section 53 of the Act, which enables an aggrieved person to institute a suit for declaration of his rights under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if he considers himself prejudiced by any entry in the Record of Rights or in a periodical record relating to a right of which he is in possession.
Any correction at this belated stage, without impleading the other affected persons or affording them a fair opportunity of hearing, would not only violate the principles of natural justice but would also result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Moreover, a defect or omission persisting for more than a hundred years, and affecting the substantive rights of multiple parties, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be characterized as a mere clerical or arithmetical mistake, particularly when the petitioners have failed to place on record any evidence explaining the inability of their predecessors to approach the relevant forum during their lifetime, as well as their prolonged silence until the year 2020. On this aspect of the matter, the High Court has rightly observed that the principles of laches and acquiescence would apply with full force in these cases, and the claim of the petitioners is plagued by inordinate and unexplained delay. Even otherwise, the discretion vested in the revenue authorities under section 166 of the Act, to correct mistakes or errors in the revenue record, is not unbridled. It is circumscribed by the requirement that the correction sought must be free from factual controversy and must not adversely affect vested rights without due adjudication. The mere existence of old, unimplemented mutations, even if attested, does not automatically entitle a party to their implementation, particularly when competing claims and long-standing revenue entries exist.
Moreover, it is well settled that, although revenue entries do not, by themselves, confer title, they carry a presumption of correctness until rebutted in accordance with law. Where the correctness, validity, or enforceability of old mutations is disputed, particularly when such mutations have remained unimplemented for decades, the matter inevitably involves disputed questions of fact and/or title requiring proper adjudication and cannot be determined by the revenue authorities. At the same time, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is intended to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy in cases where the illegality or impropriety of an impugned action is apparent on the face of the record and can be determined without undertaking an elaborate inquiry or recording evidence. However, where the controversy involves intricate, disputed, or contentious questions of fact, the resolution of which necessitates the recording and appraisal of evidence by the parties, such matters fall within the domain of courts of plenary jurisdiction, and the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, cannot assume the role of a fact-finding forum or enter into such factual controversies. This legal position is so well settled in our jurisprudence that it scarcely requires reiteration.
F.C.P.L.A. No. 137/2025
Faiz Ullah Khan & others Versus Member Board of Revenue Punjab
28-01-2026
0 Comments