2005 PLP 296 (CLC)

7. Heard the parties at length.

8. The applicant have invoked the provisions of section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 which contemplates that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decree or order made by any Revenue Officer, or errors therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer.

9. I have gone through the impugned order very minutely and carefully. For the fair appraisal of the case, the paras. relating to the case of Molvi Abdul Sattar and others in the impugned order, are reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "(5) So far the case of Molvi Abdul Sattar and others is concerned he has interest only to the extent of 8‑16 acres from B.Nos.89/1 (4‑00), 89/2 (1‑34) and 89/7 (4‑08) as this land is reportedly in his possession. This land in fact includes the land of Abdul Rasheed admeasuring 77‑39 acres out of this, an area of 5‑00 acres has already been disposed of on permanent basis leaving balance of 72‑39 acres. The petitioner Abdul Rasheed in order to settle the matter once for all voluntarily surrenders an area of 8‑16 acres in favour of petitioner Molvi Abdul Sattar. (8) In view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that there was no need at all for passing the impugned order as the case related to the implementation of the order of Land Utilization Department dated 5‑6‑1991. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order with the directions that the orders already passed in the matter should be implemented in the letter and spirit without further loss of time as the petitioner Abdul Rasheed and his co sharers mentioned a para.3 of the impugned order viz. Mukhtiar Ahmed, (2) Muhammad Aslam, (3) Abdul Haque, (4) Ashiq Ali, (5) Abdul Wahab, (6) Muhammad Sharif have already sustained sufficient loss on account of delay in finalization of the matter so far the review petition of Molvi Abdul Sattar is concerned he only claims 8‑16 acres on the basis of possession for which the petitioner Abdul Rasheed voluntarily surrenders in his favour. (9) Accordingly the review petition of petitioner Movli Abdul Sattar is allowed to the extent of 8‑16 acres bearing B.Nos.89/1 (4‑00), 89/2 (1‑34), 89/7 (4‑08) acres and the review petition of Abdul Rasheed and others is allowed to the extent of 64‑23 acres subject to the observations contained here before. The Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur should take action accordingly." .

10. The determining factor in the present case is whether non mention of the names of three applicants (present ladies) in the last para. No. 9 of the impugned order is a clerical mistake or error from accidental slip or omission which can be rectified under section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967?

11. A clerical mistake/error as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) is an error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence, especially in writing or copying something on the record and not from judicial reasoning, or determination, Among the boundless examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a document, typing an incorrect number, mistranscribing a word, and failing to lodg a call. A clerical error has been defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon as `an error in document which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip or mistake of the party preparing or copying it. One might usefully add the word `omission'; to the phrase `slip or mistake'. We are familiar with the phrase `accidental slip or omission' what it pre‑supposed is want of intention. As held in PLD 983 SC (AJ&K) 197 clerical mistake cannot‑be stretched to mean inclusion of new name instead of old one.

12. Admittedly, as already mentioned in para. 5 (ibid), the prayer of the applicants in their Application for Review No.55 of 1997 was to modify the order, dated 27‑5‑1997 of the learned Member (L.U.) to the extent that while disposing of the disputed land in open Katchary, they should also be allowed to apply along with their male family members for the grant of the land (77‑39). It is quite obvious that the learned Member (RS&EP) did not allow the prayer of the applicant, which means their application for review was rejected. Instead of allowing the applicants including the present ladies (applicants) to apply and contest for the entire land, the learned Member (L.U.) distributed the land amongst the parties in the following manner:‑‑ S. No. Name Area allowed 1 Molvi Abdul Sattar. Abdul Rasheed and others 8‑16 acres 64‑23 acres Total 72‑39 acres.

13. It would be seen that the learned Member (RS&EP) intentionally ignored the names of lady applicants and allowed 8‑16 acres of land to Molvi Abdul Sattar on the basis of possession. This fact that Molvi Abdul Sattar was in possession of 8‑16 acres, is also mentioned in para.6 of order, dated 27‑5‑1997 of the learned Member (L.U.). There is nothing on the record to suggest that the area of 8‑16 acres allowed to Molvi Abdul Sattar was jointly possessed by Molvi Abdul Sattar and the present three ladies (applicants). Therefore, the contention of the lady applicants that non‑inclusion of their names in the impugned order was, a clerical error/mistake is quite incorrect. The learned Member (RS&EP), rightly or wrongly, had allowed 8‑16 acres bearing Block Nos. 89/1 (2‑14 acres), 89/2 (1‑34 acres) and 89/7 (4‑08 acres) to Molvi Abdul Sattar only and not to anyone else including the lady applicants.

14. There is no substance in the present applications to add the names of the lady applicants in the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. The present application being devoid of. force is dismissed with no order as to the costs.

15. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide his Letter No.EDO/HVC/1092 of 2002, dated 11‑5‑2002 addressed to the Member (RS&EP) Board of Revenue, Sindh has stated that on the basis of order, dated 30‑9‑1998, the Mukhtiarkar (Estate) Ghotki has issued T.O. (Tear Off) Form in favour of Molvi Abdul Sattar through nis legal heirs and on the basis of such T.O. Form, Entries Nos.251 and 252 have been kept in V.F.VII of Deh Bhamjro, Taluka Ghotki The applicants have filed appeal before him (the Executive District Office Revenue, Ghotki) to cancel the T.O. Form and Entries Nos.251 and

252. The learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Ghotki has requested that necessary instructions may be issued whether T.O. Form issued by the Mukhtiarkar (Estate) Ghotki in favour of Molvi Abdul Sattar is correct or the names of appellants (before Executive District Officer (Revenue), Ghotki) may also be entered in the Revenue Record as per their following share which they are holding in their other Qubuli/Naqubali lands:‑‑‑ S. No. Name of Co‑sharers Share

1. Molvi Abdul Sattar son of Mehmood Sahib 0‑34 Paisa

2. Molvi Abdul Jabbar son of Mehmood Sahib 0‑34 Paisa

3. Mst. Aisha daughter of Abdul Rehman 0‑11 Paisa

4. Mst. Zubeda daughter of Abdul Rehman 0‑11 Paisa

5. Mst. Bazgha daughter of Abdul Rehman 0‑11 Paisa

16. In this context it is to make abundant clear that the inclusion of the names of lady applicants in the T.O. Form and in the record of rights, is out of question as the matter already stands finally decided by the learned Member (RS&EP) vide the impugned order. As regards the cancellation of T.O. Form and Entries Nos. 251, 252, they can only be cancelled by the appellate authority or revisional authority. If it is proved that the full price of the land has not been paid and that the conditions of the allotment/grant as laid down in the statement of conditions notified by the Government are not fulfilled, the. Executive District Officer (Revenue) being the appellate authority may hear the appeal and decide it as per law subject to limitation. So far as the entries in the V.F.VII are concerned, the same, as laid down in section 42(13) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, are attested by the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue)/the Assistant Mukhtiarkar. For the cancellation of such mutation order the appeal, as envisaged in section 161(a) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, lies before the Assistant District Officer of first grade. Moreover, section 161(1) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, clearly allows only one appeal from one original or appellate order. If there are two mutation orders one single appeal against two separate mutations order would not be competent.

17. The learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) being the appellate/revisional authority, is required to decide the appeal/revision filed before him (if any) and pass appropriate orders under the law. A Revenue Officer hearing an appeal or revision is not competent to make any reference or write any letter to the Board of Revenue seeking instructions/guidance in a judicial matter. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki is directed to decide the appeal/revision (as the case may be) pending before him strictly in accordance with the law and keeping in view the orders of the Board of Revenue made in the instant case. H.B.T./14/Rev. Review declined.