P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD, F.‑ C.‑This order will dispose of the nine revision petitions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 of 1953‑

54. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff respondents sued the petitioners, who according to the land‑revenue records are their tenants at will for recovery of rent due on account of three harvests, Rabi, 1949, Kharif, 1950 and Rabi 1950. The suits were decreed by the Assistant Collector for various amounts but on appeal the Collector modified the decreed amounts fixing the landlord's share at 2/5th of the total produce. The tenants appealed to the Commissioner; who has treated the appeals as revision petitions and for warded the proceedings with the three following recommenda tions :‑

1. In his opinion the assessment of rent has not been correctly made and should be reduced. The Khasra Girdawari of the village for Rabi, 1949 was not available and the evidence was rendered to the effect that crops grown matured fully., yields were upto the settlement standards. The Court following certain directions issued contained in the Land Administration Manual agreed with this view. The Commissioner considers this method jointly and the rent arrived at exorbitant. Even if it were so, this would not constitute sufficient ground for interference in revision. It has been repeatedly held that the revisional powers of Financial Commissioner can be invoked only on the same basis which would justify the High Court to intervene under section 115 Civil Procedure Code. The mere fact that the assessment of rent made by the original Court and the first Appellate Court appears to be on the high side to the learned Commissioner is obviously insufficient for exercising revisional powers which as already observed are restricted to certain specific categories of cases which are mentioned in section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been argued as if the instructions contained in the Land Administration Manual have legal sanctity and their violation is an illegality which would justify interference in revision but this is not so. These instructions have been issued by the Financial Commissioners for the guidance of Revenue Officers and if they have not been properly followed or understood it would not amount to any violation of the Law. The second point which has been mentioned by the Commissioner relates to the death of Fateh Din a defendant 'in two suits which have given rise to revision petitions Nos. 20 and

27. It is a fact that the legal representatives of the deceased were brought on the record after the period of limitation had expired. The learned Commissioner's plea is that as the suits were brought without specifying the shares of the different tenants following Mst. Bholi and others v. Munshi Man Singh and others (Case No. 61) the entire suits have abated. The Court of first appeal on the strength of the jamabandi entries copies of which had been filed with the plaint, allowed abatment to the extent of the share of the deceased Fateh Din. These jamabandi entries clearly specify the share of Fateh Din at th. It is true that the plain does not specify the shares of the different tenants but when copy of the jamabandi to which a presumption of truth attaches is filed along with the plaint and the Court of original jurisdiction had condoned the delay in bringing the heirs o the deceased tenant on the record, I am inclined to accept the view that has been adopted by the Collector. The third point which has been argued before me is that the land is held by the plaintiff respondents as a jagir and as a result of the Abolition of Jagirs Act the Courts have no longer any jurisdiction in the matter. Now the Abolition of Jagirs Act came into force with effect from 4th February, 1952, the suits for rent apply to the harvests of Rabi, 1949, Kharif, 1950 and Rabi, 1950. This Act therefore does not apply and the argument has no force. As a result I would conclude that there are no reasons for me to exercise the revisional powers under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and all the petitions stand dismissed. A. H. Petitions dismissed.