P L D 1962 W (PLP)

(c) Revision ‑ Record‑of‑Rights ‑ Revenue Officers drawing wrong presumption‑Revision competent. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioners. Muhammad Shafi for Respondents. This order will dispose of the three connected Revision Petitions Nos. 257 to 259 of 1957‑

58. The present petitioners (plaintiffs) instituted three separate suits in the Court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Chakwal, and prayed for a declara tion that the respondent‑tenants were merely their tenants‑at‑will in the suit land in the alternative : occupancy tenants paying rent at half batai rates. The suits prima facie had been lodged under the apprehension that the tenants would avail of the beneficial provisions of section 114 of the Tenancy Act and acquire pro prietary rights in the entire area on payment of the prescribed compensation. The area itself is quite considerable being 324 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated in village Roopwal, District Jhelum. The plaintiffs relied on entries in the Jamabandis from the year 1900 onwards, which showed the respondents to be occupancy tenants under section 5 (2) of the Tenancy Act. Entries regarding rent appeared dubious but the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade held that the tenants were paying half batai and awarded a decree accordingly. The learned Collector, however, intervened in appeal. He held that the rent entries in column No. 10, which relates specifically to rent and in column No. 13, which is the column for remarks were contradictory. The former entries spoke of cash rent at land revenue relates but the remarks column on the contrary showed occupancy tenants (Zimghi Mustigil) to be holding the land on batai. The Collector considering it a case of interpretation of ambiguous and dubious entries decided in favour of the tenants. He further held that these questionable entries came into existence somewhere in the Jamabandi of 1900 and without a regular mutation. He accordingly set aside the order of the trial Court. On second appeal the learned Commis sioner had upheld this order. The landlord have come up in revision. Two main points have been argued before me. The first one is that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in view of the provisions laid down in section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been argued on behalf of the landlords that the lower Courts in exercising their jurisdiction acted illegally as a presumption of truth attaches to entries in the Record‑of- Rights, and statutory provision has been ignored without any tangible evidence to the contrary. Besides these entries have been in existence for a period exceeding half a century without having been called into question at any stage and have thereby acquired considerable sanctity. The obvious interpretation of the entries has already been given by the Collector himself. It appears that a few of the landlords who are ostensibly in possession received rent from the occupancy tenants as batai and they themselves paid land revenue to or on behalf of the entire body of landlords. It is not clear how the Collector having mentioned this obvious interpretation decided to the contrary. He merely held that entries in column No. 10 had precedence over entries in column No. 13 and in any case the latter column being one for remarks had no sanctity attached to entries made in it. This is a view with which I do not agree. All entries in the Record‑of‑Rights have an equal presumption of truth attached to them and it would be invidious to say that entries in one column should have precedence over entries in another column, particularly when these entries are not contradictory and are capable of reasonable explanation and reconciliation. It is also incorrect to say that unless a mutation effecting a change in the method and rate of rent is forthcoming these entries which have been in existence for more than 50 years should be ignored. As pointed out there is mention of a mutation in the remarks column about the change in rent but if that mutation is not forthcoming from revenue records in the possession of Government an inference cannot be drawn against the party concerned i.e., landlords. On the, contrary the presumption is in their favour and it would be for the tenants to rebut it. Moreover as already mentioned the tenants have acquiesced in these entries throughout a long period of over 50 years and their rebuttal consisted merely of the oral evidence of three of them. In these circumstances it would be neither just nor legal to ignore the rent entries in the long time of Jamabandis. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the tenants that the provisions of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code rule out the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, it would be apparent from the above discussion that both the Collector and the learned Commissioner have exercised their jurisdiction in an illegal manner i.e., in a manner which is contrary to the statute i.e., the Land Revenue Act in drawing wrong presumption and laying the onus of proof on the landlords thereby causing material irregularity which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In my opinion the provisions of clause (c) of section 115 are clearly applicable to this case. I would, accordingly accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the two Appellate Courts below and restore that of the trial Court. In the circumstances the parties should bear their own costs throughout. K. M. A. Petition accepted.