2014 PLP 696 (CLC)

MALIK MUHAMMAD ASLAM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-VII)).

This is a revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 whereby petitioner has assailed an order dated 16-3-2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, who upheld the order of the Additional District Collector, Narowal while dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner.

2. Background of this case, in brief, is that petitioner, Fehmeez Akhtar daughter of Ghulam Haider wife of Mushtaq Ahmad moved an application before the Additional District Collector, Narowal for the correction of her name in the revenue record from "Parveen Akhtar" to "Fehmeez Akhtar". On receipt of application, report was obtained from the field staff through the Assistant Commissioner, Zafarwal and after going through the record and hearing the parties, the Additional District Collector, Narowal vide his order dated 21-5-2012 rejected the application with the direction to the petitioner to approach the civil court. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner assailed the same in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, who upheld the order and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 16-3-2013, hence this revision petition.

3. Respondents Nos.2 and 3, who happens to be brother and sister of the petitioner have not joined the proceedings in this court despite issuance of ordinary as well as registered notices. Finally, after publication of a proclamation in Daily Pakistan on 9-10-2013, they were proceeded against ex parte on 30-10-2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that both the lower courts have not appreciated the fact that under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, correction of Revenue Record is the sole responsibility of the Revenue authorities and jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted in such matters. It was alleged by the brother (respondent No.3) in the lower courts that his father contracted three marriages; first wife was issueless; from the second wife one son and one daughter born but they died and from the wedlock of third wife Khursheed Bibi (mother of the present parties) one son (respondent No.3), two daughters namely (Nasreen Akhtar/respondent No.4) and Fehmeez Akhtar (petitioner) were born. Elder daughter was Fehmeez Akhtar (petitioner) who contracted marriage at her own with Mushtaq Ahmad they had a sister named "Parveen Akhtar" who was lost in India before partition of the sub-continent and in the Revenue Record her name is existed and petitioner was not given share in the inheritance of their father due to the fact that she get married at her own due to which her father Aaq her from the property. The matter in issue pertains to correction of record, the enquiries made on the application for correction reveals that Fehmeez Akhtar is actually recorded in the Revenue Record as Parveen Akhtar and said entry has to be corrected by the revenue authorities and civil court has nothing to do with the matter in issue because it has not been denied by anyone that petitioner is daughter of Ghulam Haider. He prayed that the revision petition may be accepted, impugned orders may be set aside and the revenue authorities may be directed to correct name of the petitioner in the Revenue Record.

5. Ex parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner heard and documents placed on record perused. Report of the field staff submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, Zafarwal has also been perused, wherein it has been stated that "Parveen Akhtar and Fehmeez Akhtar are the names of one lady. The difference is only that in Revenue Record her name is recorded as Parveen Akhtar while in School Certificate her name is Fehmeez Akhtar". No separate lady with the name as Parveen Akhtar exists. It is strange that Parveen Akhtar is non-existent but her name has been incorporated in the Revenue Record. Respondent No.3, who is real brother of the petitioner, has also not denied that petitioner is not his sister and daughter of his parents. Under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, it is the duty of the Revenue authorities to keep the record updated. To me, the lower courts have wrongly referred the petitioner to the civil court. Agreeing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders of the lower courts and ordered for correction of Revenue Record by replacing the name of the petitioner, Fehmeez Akhtar with the name Parveen Akhtar.

6. A copy of this order be sent to Tehsildar, Zafarwal for information and further necessary action at his end. MH/7/Rev. Revision allowed.