P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)

(1) Muhammad Khan (deceased) grand‑father of the petitioner held half Ihata No. 21 and full Ihata No.

22. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, held that "the allotment of 3rd Ihata to him is not justified." (2) The petitioner had less than one square of land and cannot therefore be given the disputed Ihata. (3) The allotment of Ihata No. 10 in dispute without possession was illegal. The registered conveyance deed about the Ihata in favour of the petitioner did not confer any right on him because the possession had not been transferred. (4) According to the Patwari, Fredi Masih, Boota, Nawab, Babu, Hussain, Tara, Ghulam Qadir, Allah Bakhsh, George, Allah Dad, Rashid and Sain were in possession of the Ihata in dispute. Of these Allah Bakhsh who held two acres of land was in occupation of about 8 marlas in the Ihata in dispute.

3. As against these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following arguments and documents to rebut the above ground] of the order of the Additional Commissioner. These are dealt with ad seriatim with reference to the above grounds of the order of the Additional Commissioner. (1) The question for consideration was that of allotment of Ihata in favour of Muhammad Khan and not of his grand father. The Ihatas held in the name of the grand‑father of the petitioner have already been distributed among his heirs. The petitioner could not, therefore b: refused an allotment because of curtain allotments in favour of his grand‑father who in any case was an owner of large agricultural land which has already since been distributed among his heirs. No document has been produced to show any allotment in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has no Ihata in the village. (2) According to the Collector's order dated 14‑4‑1970 the petitioner was an owner of 63 acres 2 kanals of land in the Chak and not less than one square as assumed by the Additional Commissioner. (3) The petitioner's father bad been in possession of this Ihata since long time as can be seen from the copy of jamabandi for the year 1956‑57 produced as Annexure 'A'. In this the number of Ihata is shown as No. 2 which according to the counsel for the petitioner has been renumbered as 10 in the Settlement operations. Regarding the arguments of the Additional Commissioner that the registered conveyance deed had no meaning without possession the learned counsel has relied on the judgment already passed by the learned M. B. R., Mr. M. W. Abbasi, reported In P L D 1959 Rev. 167 wherein he has held that any rectifica tion of registered conveyance deed has to be done through a civil Court. I may add here that the interpretation of the Additional Commissioner, that a registered conveyance deed has no significance, is not correct. In this case the mutation in favour of the petitioner had also been sanctioned on 29‑7‑1971. 14 A registered conveyance deed and the attested mutation cannot be set aside unless if it can be proved that both these were secured through fraud. (4) It is incorrect that the appellants in the Additional Commissioner's Court, who are respondents in the present petition, have had any possession of the Ihata in dispute, as established from the extract of jamabandi for the year 1956‑57 Annexure `A' and the order of the Collector dated 14‑4‑1970 Annexure `C'. If these parties had been in possession of this Ihata since 1947 they would have agitated about it in 1958 when this Ihata was allotted to the petitioner's father vide Collector's order dated 12‑1‑1958 and which was agitated again before the Commissioner and the M. B. R. by Barkat Mengha and others in 1961‑62.

4. In addition to the above contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the appeal before the Additional Commissioner was time‑barred. On a reference to the copy of the appeal appended with the revision petition as Annexure `F' I find that the appeal does not carry any date. It should be verified with reference to the original record whether or not the appeal was time‑barred when it was entertained by the Additional Commissioner. (5) It would appear from what has been stated above that the grounds on which the Additional Commissioner passed his orders have been challenged both on facts and law and attested copies of documents have been produced in support of ‑the rebuttal of facts assumed by the Additional Commissioner. The case is therefore remanded to the Commissioner who should please go into the facts as stated in the revision petition and the documents in original to ascertain if they are correct and can be relied upon. If it is so, the order of the Additional Commissioner stands annulled. If the facts stated by the petitioner are not entirely supported at the spot and the records in original, the case should be re‑decided by the Commissioner on merits. Parties be informed accordingly. Order accordingly.