P L D (PLP)

(c) Land revenue‑Payment of‑First charge on land‑Collect ing agencies can collect land revenue from a person occupying land without regard to his title thereto. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioner. Sh. Ehsan Elahi for Respondent. I have heard the learned advocates.

2. This is a revision petition against order dated 28‑7‑70 of Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi whereby he rejected petitioner's appeal in respect of mutation of redemption No. 166 of village Yousaf, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat.

3. The facts are that the petitioner orally mortgaged his land measuring 144 kanals 16 marlas in the above village with the respondent and mutation No. 137 was attested on 27‑9‑1959 to this effect. The petitioner obtained a lease from the respondent for cultivation of the land as his tenant. His possession con tinued as such and in 1963 it was changed as without payment of lease money, on the presumption of Faq‑ur‑Rehan". The A. C. II on the basis of non‑receipt of rent by the mortgagee (respondent) and non‑payment of Government dues had come to the conclusion that redemption had been proved and attested on 22‑7‑1969 mutation No. 166 of redemption in favour of the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector who accepted it on 22‑4‑1970 and set aside A. C. II's order on the ground that the receipt of the mortgage money was denied by the mortgagee, that the redemption was not proved and the matter being of complicated nature the parties should seek remedy from the civil Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who rejected it on 28‑7‑1970 for similar reasons. Hence this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the present revision does not lie in view of the concurrent findings of the lower Court. I do not agree, because section 104 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act does not restrict the powers of this Court to hear a case against concurrent findings of the lower Courts. The objection is therefore, ruled out.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the land was redeemed in 1963 after full payment of mortgage money and since then the petitioner occupied the land as its owner and did not pay any share of produce to respondent which fact is supported by the entries of Jumabandi and Khasra Girdawari and that he has been paying the land revenue himself. Moreover, the mutation of redemption was sanctioned in his favour on the basis of enquiries made by A. C. Il in which two Lambardars of the village and other witnesses had stated that petitioner had paid the mortgage money amounting to Rs. 15,000 to the respon dent. However, he admitted that the petitioner did not get a receipt from the respondent for the payment of this amount. I do not agree with this argument because it is inherently unlikely that a person while paying such a big amount of Rs. 15,000 did not care or thought it necessary, to get a receipt therefor. So far as the entries of Jamabandi etc. are concerned they are not a good proof for the payment of this amount and can usually be managed at the lower level. It would mean to raise a presump tion in a document which is already based on presumption. The statement of Lambardars and others, cannot be cross‑examined in this Court and are not sufficient to shift the onus which heavily lies on the petitioner, so far as the payment of amount is concerned. As regards the payment of Land Revenue, this is a first charge on the land and the collecting agencies can collect the same from a person occupying the land without regard to his title to the land.

6. In view of the foregoing facts I hold that in the absence of a receipt of payment or admission to this fact by the mortgagee, the redemption of mortgage is not proved. There is no force in the revision petition and is therefore, dismissed. The petitioner can seek redress in the civil Court if he so likes. Petition dismissed.