2001 PLP 605 (CLC)

"permission for the correction of the record through ' Sehat Intaqal' in regard to the previous Khasra No.1503/1 (presently 1754) in accordance with entries recorded in the Register Haqdaran Zamin 1971‑72 as recommended by the Enquiry Officer/Naib Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, Talagang is hereby granted."

4. Mst. Sardaran Begum, etc. successors‑in‑interest of land shown to have been allotted to Piran Ditta and Abdul Aziz submitted an appeal against the order of District Collector. This appeal was decided by Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division on 5th October, 1995 with the following observation:‑‑ "The issue involved in this case is not one of review of allotment made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958. It is rather a matter of correcting an entry made in the Revenue Record. This entry was patently a fraudulent one because the additional area of land shown as Khasra No.1503/3 is non‑existent. When there is no land, there can be no entry in the Revenue Record and if an entry is made in the air, it is the jurisdiction of the District Collector under section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 to correct such an entry."

5. Mst. Sardaran Begum, etc. have filed this revision petition against the order, dated 5th October, 1995 of Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division.

6. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as under:‑‑ (a) That after the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to cancel or interfere with any allotment made by Settlement Authorities. In support of his contention, he referred to PLD 1998 Lah. 473, PLD 1986 Lah. 109, 1984 SCMR 228, 1981 CLC 543, 1986 CLC 54, PLD 1982 Lah. 569, 1981 SCMR 503, 1981 SCMR 899, 1984 SCMR 332, 2000 YLR 1498, 1982 CLC 2500 and 1983 CLC

414. Only proceedings which immediately before, such repeal were pending before the Settlement Authorities, or cases remanded by Supreme Court and High Court were transferred for final disposal to Notified Officers. The present respondent submitted application in 1994 which was not entertainable. Therefore, the order of D.C. /Collector is without jurisdiction. (b) That long‑standing entries of Revenue Record ought not to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on 1991 CLC 865, 1993 MLD 76, 1987 MLD, 332 and 1996 MLD 1102. (c) The respondents in the lower Court had contended that. she had right in the land in dispute at they obtained it from one Abdul Majeed. She had no nexus with the land which was allotted to Piran Ditta. Her lis, if any, should be with the land which was allotted to Abdul Majeed and not which was allotted to Piran Ditta. The petitioners purchased the land from one Maula Bakhsh son of Lal. Maula Bakhsh had purchased this land from the original allottee Piran Ditta vide Mutation No.4644, dated 30th April, 1964. (d) The move by D.C./Collector for review of order passed by Revenue Officer is bad in law as held in 1999 CLC 990.

7. It is stated by the respondent who is present in persoa that facts of the case as reported in the impugned orders are correct.

8. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the parties and examined the record. It is abundantly clear from reading of the two orders that Khasra No. 1503 comprised the area measuring 88 Kanals and 2 Malras. The land in this Khasra number was exhausted by allotment made to Muhammad Yahya and Abdul Majeed Abbassi. The additional area manufactured out of this Khasra number was, therefore, non=existent. No right or interest is created by orders passed or entries made in respect of a non‑existent entity. It is, therefore, clear that allotment made on Serial Nos.27 and 34 of Register R.L.‑II were unimplementable in Revenue Record since there was no land factually or actually allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners. The creation of Khasra No.1503/3 and re -allotment of Khasra No.1503/1 were fictitious in nature. The question, therefore, was not whether the order of D.C./Collector and Commissioner tantamount to review of orders made by Settlement Authorities. In fact, it was purely a question of correction of Revenue Record. D.C./Collector ‑and Commissioner, therefore, rightly ordered for correction of Revenue Record since fictitious entries cannot be allowed to stay in the revenue documents. There is, therefore, no force in the pleadings of learned counsel for the petitioners. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./34/Rev Revision dismissed.