P L D 1990 Peshawar 108 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 16th May, 1989. This Civil Revision has been filed by Mirbaz Khan alias Bazi and two others against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Bannu on 18‑11‑19135 and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Bannu vide his judgment dated 13‑7‑1987 whereby the suit for declaration and possession of land in dispute had been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts briefly are that the plaintiffs‑petitioners filed a suit against the defendants‑respondents for a declaration that petitioners 1 and 3 were owner‑in‑possession of 7/18 while petitioner No.2 of 41/144 shares out of land bearing Khasra No.497 measuring 2 kanals and 15 marlas situated in village Fatima Khel Kalan and further that they were tenants‑in‑possession thereof and that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari in Rabi, 1980 showing Atlas Khan respondent No.l as owner‑in‑possession and confirmation of this entry by the order dated 1‑12‑1980 of the Extra Assistant Commissioner was void and ineffective against the rights of the petitioners. According to the averments in the plaint, the petitioners were tenants‑at‑will of suit land since 1916‑

17. In Rabi, 1980 respondent No.l in collusion with Revenue Authorities got himself recorded as tenant‑at‑will. On the foot of this fictitious entry, respondent No.l also succeeded to get his so‑called possession confirmed by the order dated 1‑12‑1980 of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Bannu, under the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. which were void and ineffective against their right and the wrong entries of the Revenue Record were liable to correction. Strangely enough a decree for possession of the suit land was also claimed in relief `Bany' of the heading of plaint alongwith perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.l to interfere with the petitioners' possession over the disputed land.

3. The suit was contested by respondent No.l on the grounds which are reflected in the issues framed by the learned trial Judge. Crucial issues are No.1 and 4 which are to the following effect:‑‑ . (1) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree prayed for in the head note of their plaint?

4. The learned trial Judge decided issue No.l against the petitioner No.l while issue No.4 was partially decided in his favour by holding that petitioner No.l was `entitled' to 1/3 marla in the disputed Khasra No.497 while his prayer for the remaining land was dismissed. Against this decree, the petitioners took an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, Bannu, but without any success. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, in this Court by Filing the present petition.

5. The learned counsel for the answering respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the relief for correction of record of rights in general and that of Khasra Girdawari in particular and maintained that correction of crop inspection register could only be made by the Revenue Authorities which was not subject to interference by the Civil Court. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on: (1) Gulab Khatoon v. Muhammad Yaqub PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lah. 324 and (2) Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal v. Sher Muhammad 1980 CLC

520. In the first precedent it was held that Collector was the proper authority to dispose of matter relating to entry in Khasra Girdawari and, therefore, civil suit for correction of entries of Khasra was barred under sections 33(3) and 158(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVH of 1887) (since repealed). In Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal's case the contention that the Member Board of Revenue did have exclusive power to order correction of Khasra Girdawari under section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) was upheld in the following words:‑‑ "There can be no dispute with the broad proposition as advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, all such orders are subject to judicial review of this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction:"

6. I am in respectful agreement with the general principle of law enuciated above. Khasra Girdawari being maintained under the control of the Collector, therefore, a civil suit will be barred under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 just for correction in Khasra Girdawari. Nonetheless, this power seems to be not absolute. It would not only be subject to interference by the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, but would also be amenable to jurisdiction of the Civil Court under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.

7. Be that as it may, even if the petitioners herein are granted a declaratory relief, that entries of Khasra Girdawari are liable to correction, they will have to approach the Revenue Authorities for their redress because petitioner No.l is recorded as owner of 1/3 marla and in possession as tenant at will of an unspecified area in Khasra Girdawari alongwith his two brothers who have already sold their title and possession therein to respondent No.l. In the circumstances, petitioner No.l may, if so advised, approach the Revenue Authorities to get the correction of the Khasra Girdawari. With these observations this petition in revision is dismissed. AA./1006/P Revision dismissed.