1980 PLP 520 (CLC)

5. It is contended by the learned counsel, that the Member, Board of Revenue, passed the impugned order without calling for the record and without going into the relevance, validity or effect of the canal khatunis and the report of the Tehsildar. The counsel, however, is not in a position to prove from the documents before me that the record had not been called for. He then relied on Annexures R/1 to R/4 to say that had the Member, Board of Revenue seen the record relied on by him, he could not have upheld the joint cultivation of the respondents in all the Khasra numbers.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 defended the impugned order mainly on the ground that as the Member, Board of Revenue did have exclusive power under section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act, his order is not subject to interference by this Court. He also relied on a judgment of it-his Court in W. P. No. 3230/76 holding that the Member, Board of Revenue did have the power to correct entries of the revenue record.

7. There can be no dispute with the broad proposition as advanced b the learned counsel for the respondents. However, all such orders are sub to judicial review of this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the documents on the record, 1 find that the impugned order cannot be maintained. It is an admitted fact that the litigation out of which the present petition arose was meant to affect the result of the pre-emption suit of the petitioner. The suit could be dismissed if the respondents were proved to be tenants of the demised land in view of the preferential right conferred on them under para. 25k4) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. It is also clear that the Collector did pass his order without allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He did so after the petitioner informed him of his interest in the cause. Further, he relied on a concession from Nazir Ahmad vendor who got his proprietary rights on the representation that he himself cultivated the land and did not sublet it. The Collector ought to have checked up the 'terms and conditions' of the grant and ought not to have falsified his own record and the order granting the proprietary rights.

8. In any case the record produced by the respondents themselves does not support the orders passed by the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue. The position as appears from these documents is as under :- Annex Crop Cultivator Khasra Nos. R/1 Kharif, 1974 Sher Muhammad 50/1 to 5, 9 & 10 51 /7 to 10: R/2 Rabi, 1974-75 Sher Muhammad 50/3, 5 to 10 Muhammad Siddique. 51/6 to 10 R/3 Kharif, 1975. Sher Muhammad. 50/1, 3 to 10. 51/6 &

7. R/4 Rabi, 1975-76 Sher Muhammad. 50/2 to 10. 51/7 to

10. The above table makes it absolutely clear that there was no joint cultiva tion. Both the respondents had their independent occupation of various Khasras in different crops. Neither the Collector nor did tire Member Board of Revenue apply his mind to this aspect of the case. Consequently, the orders passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue, holding the respondents 1 and 2 to be the tenants of the entire disputed land are without lawful authority.

9. It is to be noted further that in view of the provisions of para. 25(4) of the Land Reforms Regulation, the revenue authorities have to be careful in entertaining such applications, particularly after proceedings of pre-emption have started. Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act does give power to the civil Courts to decide disputes in respect of entries in the record of rights or the periodical record i.e. khasra girdawari . Thus it is only a waste of time and money to permit such an exercise in the revenue courts. According to the law, as it stands now, the pre-emption cases are triable by tire Collector, He himself is responsible for the maintenance of the revenue record. He, therefore, could ask the parties to adduce whatever evidence they like to, in respect of entries in the khasra girdawaris and decide the issue in those proceedings. He should not encourage ex pane proceedings at the instance of only one of them. It is to be further noted that whereas the proceedings under the pre-emption suit are of a judicial nature, the correction of Khasra girdawari is an administrative act, meant only to correct the fiscal record. Consequently, any exercise on the administrative side will amount to inter ference with the course of justice: In view of the above, this petition succeeds, the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the order of the Additional Commissioner shall be maintained. There will be no order as to costs. S. Q. Petition accepted.