P L D 1965 W (PLP)

Muhammad Tufail for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Anwar for Respondents. This is a second revision fled against an order dated 5th of February 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that mutation No. 76 was entered for correcting the revenue entries with regard to the land in dispute. This mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it and ordered the correction of entries. The petitioner went in revision to the Additional Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I partly heard the arguments on the last hearing and sent for the file containing the orders passed by Mr. Ijaz Hussain Qureshi who carried out settlement in Rawalpindi Division. An examination of the file shows that proper enquiries were made and it was found that the land in dispute was ghair mumkin khandar and the entry about its being banjar qadim was, therefore, wrong. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that previous entry in favour of the petitioner may be allowed to stand and should not be corrected. I am afraid I cannot accept this suggestion for the simple reason that the land in dispute was ghair mumkin khandar and could never be under cultivation. If a land has not been cultivated at all, it can never be banjar qadim because banjar qadim can be the classification for that land which was under the plough once but subsequently was allowed to remain as uncultivated. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested is for time to produce revenue entries purporting to show that this land had been cultivated by the father of the petitioner, I have examined the file mentioned above and find that the father of the petitioner wanted time to produce the necessary copies on 4‑4‑1961. He was given time till 29‑4‑

61. On the date, he wanted further time and the case was adjourned to 9‑5‑

61. It appears that the father of the petitioner died before that date and, on 9‑5‑61, the statement of the petitioner was taken but he could not produce any copies of the revenue record to support the contention that the land in dispute had ever been under cultivation. No further time can be given for the production of copies of revenue records. As a matter of fact, there would be no such copies as otherwise these would have been taken notice of by the Settlement Officer or would have been produced by the petitioner or his father. In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned Collector and the learned. Additional Commissioner were perfectly justified. No interference is called for. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.