P L D 1965 W (PLP)

This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 14th of October 1963, passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, whereby he accepted the revision preferred by the respondents. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner moved the Assistant Collector for the correction of an entry in revenue records on the ground that the dividing line between Khasra No. 22 and Khasra No. 23 was, in fact, 14 karams and not

20. Enquiries were made and the dividing line was actually measured. It was found to be 14 karams. The Assistant Collector entered and sanctioned a mutation for correcting the entries. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector but the appeal was dismissed. The respondents then went in revision to the Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Commissioner was influenced by the consideration that 1940 (19) L L T 29 was applicable to this case. There is no doubt about the principles laid down in this ruling but it is not applicable to the present case. In this case, one has to see whether the conditions laid down by section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act have been satisfied or not. Entries in revenue records can be, corrected if facts are either admitted or proved. In this case, the dividing line by actual measurement was found to be 14 karams and not 20 karams. The position at the spot is also according to the dividing line being 14 and not 20 karams. The area of Khasra Nos. 22 and 33 as given in the revenue records will be correct only if the dividing line is 14 karams. In case it was taken to be 20 karams, the area of each of the two Khasra numbers will be increased by more than 40 per cent. All these considerations fully prove that the length of the dividing line is 14 and not 20 karams. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the measurement was not according to the prescribed procedures. In this case, no other procedure was called for because the two ends of the dividing line are fully established and the only question for determination was whether the distances between the two ends of the dividing line was 20 or 14 karams. By actual measurement, it has been found to be 14 and there is no need for any further measurement at all. It may also be pointed out that, in the settlement of 1884‑85, the dividing line was correctly recorded as 14 karams. It appear that, by a clerical error, the length was given as 20 and not 14 in subsequent settlements. As remarked by the learned Collector, this is a case of clerical error and can, therefore, be corrected. In these circumstances, I accept the second revision set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner, and direct that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the learned Collector shall stand. A. H. Petition accepted.