1992 PLP 1598 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 163‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Allotment of land to respondent duly reflected in Record of‑Rights‑‑‑Petitioners 1hercafter, had managed to show their ownership on part of land through connivance with Patwari‑‑‑Collector after obtaining reports from Tchsildar and Assistant Commissioner, allowed review of mutation‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Patwari or any other revenue officer was not authorised to take away order of allotment in Register RL.11‑‑‑Proper course for petitioners would have been to prefer appeal ‑‑‑Palwari having exceeded his authority in changing entry in Register RL.I1, permission to review mutation was correctly accorded by Collector. Iftikhar Hussain Khera on behalf of Ch. Mazhar Hussain for Petitioners. Fazal one of heirs of deceased Respondent in person. Zinda respondent applied to the District Collector that he was allotted 2 Kanals evacuee land in village Odhapur, Tehsil Bahawalnagar under Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. That allotment remained intact till 1964‑

65. Subsequently, without any proper sanction, out of this land an area of I Kanal 14 Marlas was shown, in the ownership of one Bahadur, who sold it to one Sultan from whom it was purchased by the petitioners. The District Collector vide his order dated 18‑8‑1981 allowed the review of the Mutations Nos.457 and

590. The petitioners challenged that order of the District Collector but failed. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his written arguments submitted that it was necessary to hear tile petitioners before reviewing Mutation No.590 and that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnagar's order granting permission to review was not a speaking order. It was incorrect that respondent had been confirmed Khasra No.12 (area 1 Kanal 14 Marlas) in Rectangle No.539/10 as it was (non‑evacuee) Muslim ownership. According to the Record‑of‑Rights for the years 1943‑44, one, Bahadur son of Gahna owned this area and his possession was also reflected in the Record‑of‑Rights for the year 1952‑53 and vide Mutation No.590, an area of 69 Kanals 14 Marlas, inclusive of the Khasra number in dispute, was purchased by the petitioners and the Collector was therefore not competent to review the mutation and correct the long‑standing entries in the Record‑of‑Rights. The matter should have been referred to the Civil Court.

3. The respondent was directed to submit written arguments on 6‑1‑1991, but he did not comply with the directions and subsequently abstained from the proceedings. The case was therefore taken up for decision on its merits as they stand.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The respondent had applied to the Collector that he was allotted an area measuring 2 Kanals in Khasra No.539/10/12, which had been duly reflected in the Record of Rights for the, year 19(A‑

65. However, subsequently the petitioners had managed to show their ownership on 1 Kanal 12 Marlas through connivance with the Patwari. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, after obtaining reports from the Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, allowed review of the mutations vide his order dated 18‑8‑1981. It was felt by the learned Additional Commissioner that "if the land was wrongly allotted to the respondent being non‑evacuee land, the proper course would have been to move for the cancellation of the allotment. The Patwari or any other functionary of the revenue agency of the Tehsil was not competent to decide the matter himself. This reason is unexceptionable as the law and the rules do not authorise the Patwari or any other revenue official to take away the order of allotment in' Register RL.11. The proper course for the petitioners would have been to prefer an appeal. Since the aforesaid act of the Patwari exceeded his authority, therefore, tile permission to review the mutations was correctly accorded by tile District Collector on the comprehensive reports or the `Tehsildar, Assistant Commissioner and his office staff. The parties can bf heard later by the Revenue Officer while actually reviewing the mutation in question.! In these circumstances, 1 do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner and dismiss the revision petition. A.A./479/R Revision dismissed