2009 PLP 542 (CLC)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM C.J.

This judgment shall dispose of both the Writ Petitions Nos.1717 of 2006 and 1762 of 2006, as both impugn the .order of Chief Commissioner, Islamabad dated 21-6-2006.

2. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order of Chief Commissioner, Islamabad exercising the powers of Board of Revenue, ICT, Islamabad allowing revision of the respondents and setting aside the concurrent findings recorded by Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad exercising the powers of Commissioner (Revenue), Islamabad as well as Assistant Commissioner/District Collector, Islamabad, directing the parties to seek remedy from the Civil Court.

3. The Collector, Islamabad respondent No.3 received a complaint, through the Chief Executive Secretariat, National Accountability Bureau, Investigation Wing-CIT, Islamabad of tampering in various revenue record of Mauza Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad. After thorough examination of record and report from Tehsildar/Field Revenue Staff, found that entries against the following Khewat numbers of Misal-e-Haqiat, 1955-1956, of revenue estate, Mauza Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad have been tampered:

22, 25, 32, 33, 34, 41, 44, 46, 82, 83, 84, 87, 89, 146, 147, 148, 163, 265 Comparison of old and new Khewat numbers is as under:

Khewat number as per Misal-e-Haqiat, 1956-1957 New Khewat number as per Jamabandi 1990-1991 22 139, 140, 141, 192, 193, 409, 410 25 144, 145 44 191 46 166 82 51 84 55 87 57, 58, 409, 410 89 71, 72 92 74, 75, 76 146 194, 195, 196, 409 148 409 163 252, 253, 254 265 405 The Collector passed order dated 12-3-2001 for correction of revenue record of following Khewat numbers of Mauza Jhangi Syedan, Islamabad as there was an injunctive order against the rest:

"139, 140, 141, 193, 192, 191, 166, 55, 58, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 194, 195, 196, 252, 253 and 254."

4. The order dated 12-3-2001 was assailed, by respondents Nos.6 to 20, in appeal before respondent No.2, who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 7-1-2005. Revision petition No.2 of 2005 was filed before respondent No.1, exercising the powers of Board of Revenue, Islamabad, who accepted the same vide his order dated 21-6-2006 directing the parties to seek their remedy from the Civil Court, which has given rise to this petition.

5. Petitioners learned counsel have contended that revenue record was tampered with, hence rightly ordered to be corrected by the forum below through concurrent orders which have been set aside by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad merely on the ground that the parties have a remedy in civil Court; the learned Chief Commissioner has lost sight of the provision of section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, which confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the revenue Courts to order correction of entries; fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings; concurrent findings of fact cannot be set aside in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the findings are based on misreading and non-reading. Reference has been made to Fateh Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 80, Ch. Fateh Khan v. Mst. Shahzad Begum PLD 1967 W.P. (Rev.) 9, Dilmir and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others, PLD 1991 Lahore 314, Muhammad Tufail v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others, 1992 SCMR 1334, Iqbal Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others v. Muhammad Ilyas and 5 others, 1998 CLC 1216 and a Memorandum No.583-85 468/Lahore, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore."

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that long standing entries appearing in the settlement record cannot be changed by the revenue authorities in summary manner without the order of civil Court. Reference has been made to Muhammad Abdullah and 5 others v. Shehzad Hussain and 8 others, 2002 YLR 2249 Lahore, Himat alias Allah Deya v. Rehmat, 2004 YLR 2992 (Lahore), Mst. Gulpari alias Gulbaro v. Zarin Khan and others PLD 1994 Peshawar 249, Muhammad Ishaq v. Member (R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 others, 1994 MLD 2254 (Lahore), Anjum Mahmood and 5 others v. Rizwan Ahmad and 7 others, 2006 CLC 876 (Lahore), Mst. Surrayia Bano v. Mst. Nazia Bano and others, 1996 CLC 1690 (Board of Revenue Punjab); that the matter is sub-judice before the civil Court involving complicated question of facts and law, hence the constitutional petition is not maintainable. Reference has been made to Chowdhury Tanvir Ahmad Siddiky v. The Province of East Pakistan and others, PLD 1968 SC 185, Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and others, 2004 SCMR 604 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) and that the report of revenue officials seeking correction in entries is ex-parte, hence of no avail.

7. Heard, record perused.

8. Before attending to the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to go through the case-law cited by both the sides to find out the ratio decidendi deducible from the above case-law:

PLD 1966 W.P. (Rev.) 80.

It was held that concurrent findings of facts cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. PLD 1967 W.P. (Rev.) 9.

It was held that revenue authorities were not precluded from correcting, by way of review, wrongful entries of mutations secured through fraud or collusion of revenue subordinates. PLD 1991, Lah. 314.

Correction of any entry in the record of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations having been expressly barred by section 172(2)(vi) of the Act from the jurisdiction of civil Courts, errors in such record could be rectified by the Revenue Authorities alone. 1992 SCMR 1334.

The dispute pertained to allotment of horse-breeding grant in the Horse Breeding Scheme. The concurrent findings of the revenue officials were not interfered with holding that so far as the question of entitlement is concerned, namely, as to who is the best person entitled to the allotment of the grant, concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the revenue officials and the same calls for no interference, there being no judicial errors in the orders. 1998 CLC 1216.

Rectification of mutation was held justified for entries based on fraud and concealment of facts. Error which had appeared due to incidental slip, could be corrected by revenue authorities at any stage and such entry could not create any right in favour of person, who is guilty of securing the same by concealment of facts. Memorandum No.583-85 468/Lhr. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 7-5-1985:

Restriction on variation of entries in records:

Entries in a record of rights or in a periodical record, except entries mentioned in the periodical record by Patwaris under clause (a) of section 43 with respect to un-disputed acquisition of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise then by:-- (a) making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred; (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; and (c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them. PLD 1968 SC 185.

A number of petitions under the then Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 were filed questioning the notifications issued under subsection (2) of section 3 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. In one of the petitions at the time of hearing, it was observed by the High Court that a regular suit, filed by the appellant to establish the nature of the property, is pending in the civil Court, which would be a sufficient ground for denying relief in constitutional jurisdiction. PLD 1994 Pesh. 249.

Civil Revision before the High Court arose out of a declaratory suit filed before the civil Court. The controversy between the parties was as to whether the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred under section 172(2)(vi) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and whether the suit is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. The facts involved were as to whether the petitioner was daughter of deceased landlord requires evidence, hence jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred. 1994 MLD 2254 (Lahore).

The dispute related to a sale made through sale-deed in violation of para.25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The M.B.R. set aside the transaction of sale. High Court, held that it was not a case of mere rectification of revenue entries. Question of title has been decided by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who had no jurisdiction in the matter. 1996 CLC 1690 (Board of Revenue Punjab).

The case related to a review of mutation and it was held that the transaction was made through a registered sale-deed and the said document holding the field, petitioner cannot be deprived of his valuable rights. 2002 YLR 2249 (Lahore).

The controversy between the parties, in this case was as to whether Mst. Ghulam Ayesha had been appointed as guardian for the land of Wafa Abbas minor, in village Kamala or his guardianship will extend to village Jalla Makhdoom as well. In this view, it was held that this factual controversy requires evidence. 2004 SCMR 604 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).

The facts of the case were that an application was moved for review of mutations before Additional Commissioner on which an order was passed by the Collector, directing Tehsildar for its disposal as per law. Respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction questioning assumption of jurisdiction by the Collector. Stance taken by the plaintiff was controverted and an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. was moved. Plaint was rejected. Decision was affirmed in appeal. The High Court accepted the civil revision and remitted the case to the trial Court. Leave was sought against the order which was refused on the ground that the rights of the parties as agitated by both the sides are to be determined by a Court which is seized of the civil suit. 2004 YLR 2992 (Lahore).

This matter arose out of a civil suit. It was observed that civil Court cannot assume the function performable by revenue officials under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, but whenever a dispute with regard to title of property comes for determination the only forum for this purpose is civil Court. 2006 CLC 876 (Lahore).

It was a suit for declaration pleading that a decree was passed in favour of defendants and the same is illegal and void. The Court in that context . relying on the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. directed return of the plaint.

9. On examination of the case-law, I am of the opinion that revenue Courts have exclusive jurisdiction under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 to direct correction of an entry in the revenue record even if it is in the settlement record, old and long standing, if not supported by any decree, order or judgment of the Court and varied in violation of section 45 of Revenue Act.

10. On access to the original record and its examination, in presence of the learned counsel for both the parties, it manifests interpolation and tampering. When confronted with such interpolation of record, learned counsel for the respondents replied that evidence is required on this score. Stance of the revenue officer is that disputed entries in the revenue record are result of interpolation, fraud and are not backed by any order of the Court or revenue officer.

11. The order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector was well reasoned, which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner/ Commissioner (Revenue). These concurrent orders were not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, in the absence of any mistake apparent on the face of record. The original record clearly indicates interpolation and its tampering. Admittedly, the beneficiary of such interpolation and tampering are the contesting respondents. Their names have been entered against certain Khewat for the first time, while shares have been increased against some of the Khewat numbers without acquisition of any title document. Khewat-wise position is recorded below:-- Khewat No. Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 Khewat No. Jamabandi for the year 1952-1957 Khewat No. Misal-e-Haqiat 1956-1957 Khewat Nos. Jama-bandi 1990-1991 Observation by the Court 23 Names of Owners. Total 24 share as under:- Qurban Hussain Shah son of Hayat Shah 3 share Inayat Hussain Shah-Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah-6 shares each Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-3 share. Mst. Nazir Fatima widow of Nazir Hussain Shah-3 share Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah-9 Share caste Syed Mshahadi residents 23 Names of owners Total 196 share as under:- Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons Of Nazar Shah

33 shares each Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 share Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-18 shares Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah--36 shares caste Syed Mashahadi residents. Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah "A to Muhammad Rafique Shah sons Of Fazal Din Shah Caste Qureshi Hashmi Actual owners "100 shares" residents of Thulla Syedan. A" 22 Names of Owners Total 96 share as under:- Lal Hussain Shah Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah--33 shares each Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 share Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah--18 shares Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah--26 shares caste Syed Mashahadi residents "B" to Fazal Din son of Sher Baz Khan "10 share" "B" Actual owners- caste Qureshi Hashmi Resident of Thulla Syedan 139 140 141 192 193 409 410 In 1952-1953 Figure 1 was added to make the shares

196. In 1956-1957, it was recorded as 96 shares. Interpolation is clear on original record. Change is not supported by any document. A to A:- Change was made by introducing the names without acquisition of title B to B:- Names at A to A (sic) and instead B to B. substituted. 23 Names of Owners Total 24 share as under:- Qurban Hussain Shah son Of Hayat Shah 3 Shares Inayat Hussain Shah-Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah 6 shares each Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah--3 Shares Mst. Nazir Fatima widow of Nazir Hussain Shah--3 shares Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah--9 Share caste Syed Mshahadi residents. 23 Names of Owners Total 196 share as under:-- Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons Of Nazar Shah--33 shares each Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 shares Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah--18 shares Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah--36 shares--Ab dul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad "C to Rafique Shah sons of Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi Hashmi actual owners "100 shares" "C" residents of Thulla Syedan 25 Names of Owners Total 96 share as under:- Lal Hussain Shah-11 shares Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah-equal shares-- Haqdaran shamiat-- sons of Nazar Shah--Ashiq Hussain Shah sons of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 shares-22 shares Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-8 shares Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah--36 shares Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- "D to Muhammad Rafique Shah sons of Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi Hashmi residents of Thulla Syedan - euqal Shares- actual owners "11 share" 144 145 C to C-Allocated 100 shares incorrectly and then changed as mentioned in D to D. Change not supported by document. 46 Name of Owners:- Total 32 Share as under:-Mst. Hussain Fatima Widow of Mehtab Shah--3 shares Mst. Bewi Noor wife of Fazal Din caste Oureshi, Resident of Thulla Svedan_ "1 share" Rehman son of Mehsam Ali- Muhammad Bakhsh son of Kamal- caste Awan-6 shares Karam Bakhsh son of Waris-4 shares "E to Fatal Din son Sher Baz caste Qureshi Resident of Thulla Syedan- 7 shares"- "E Noor Ahmad- Fazal Ahmad- Meer Dad- Karim ad--Fatal DElahi sons of Elahi Bakhsh caste Awan-7 equal shares- Muhammad Aameen Son of Hayat Bakhsh-4 share caste Resident of Chehllo. 44 Name of Owners:- Total 64 Share as under:-Mst. Hussain Fatima Widow of Mehtab Shah-6 Share and Haqdar Shamiat-9 Share Mst. Bewi Noor wife of Fazal Din caste Qureshi "4 share Abdul Rehman son of Mehsam Ali- Muhammad Bakhsh son of Kamal- caste Awan- 8 shares Karim Bakhsh son of Waris-8 Shares "F to Fazal Din son Sher Baz Khan "22 shares" Noor Ahmad Fazal Ahmad- Meer Dad- Karam Dad- Fazal Elahi Sons of Elahi Bakhsh caste Awan- residents of Chehllo Share equal to 10 shares- Muhammad Aameen son of Hayat Bakhsh-6 shares- Owners in possession- Lal Lal Hussain Shah etc. Haqdaran Shamlat. 191 Correct share Mentioned in Jamabandi 1952- 1953 as "1" was substituted as "4" without any supporting document. Entry of 7 share was substituted by 22 share without any supporting document. Name of Owners 50 Name of Owners Total 288 Share Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah-share equal to 27 share Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-27 share Hussain Fatima widow Mehtab Shah 54 Share Karam Ilussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah-66 Share Mst. Badral Bi Wife of Niaz Hussain Shah-24 share Chanan Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah-30 Share Safdar son Of Peer Bakhsh 2/3 share-Fazal Noor widow of Meh 1/3 Share "G to Fazal Din son of Sher Ba Khan "54 share" Caste Qureshi residents of Thulla Syedan Owners in possession 46 Name of owners. Total 288 share as under:- Mst. Ilussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-54 share Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah 27 share Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Ilussain shah-26 share Ghulam Sarwar son of Jalal Din caste Qureshi-24 share Chan Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah 30 share Safdar son of Mehr Bakhsh-6 Share "H to Fazal Din son of Sher Baz "94 share" "H" Rakhmat Hussain Shah son of Muhammad Shah-27 Share Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah-99 share, caste Syed Mashhadi residents. 166 Figure 54 share in "G to G" in Jamabandi for the year, 1952-1953 substituted with figure 94 share, in 1956-1957'; "H to H" 85 Ghulam Shabbir Shah son of Fazal Shah owner in possession- 1/3 share Abdul Latif son of Ismail caste Qureshi Chehello 1/3 share Safdar Hussain Shah-Zafar Ali Shah sons-14 share Mst. Ghulam Janat - Zenab Fatima daughters- share equal to 7 share- Mst. Kaneez Fatima-3 share widow Qaim Shah 1/6 share Ali Akbar Shah son of Ahmad Ali shah 1/6 share caste Syed Mashhadi residents. 82 Irshad. Hussain Shah son of Ali Haider Shah 1/3 Share Safdar Hussain Shah-Zafar Ali Shah- share equal to 14 share Mst. Ghulam Janat -Mst. Zainab Fatima - daughters-7 share Ali Akbar Shah son of Ahmad Ali Shah-1/6 share Abdul Hameed Shah son of Fazal Din Shah-1/3 Share caste Qureshi Hashmi residents Thulla Syedan 51 (vide "mutation No.1967 "land was purchased from the column of cultivation but implemented in the column of ownership) 90 Mst. Sahib Nishan widow of Ahmad Shah 2/3 Share Safdar Hussain Shah-Zafar Ali Shah sons -share equal to 14 share Mst. Ghulam Janat- Zainab Fatima daughters- share equal to 7-share- Mst. Kaneez Fatima widow of Qaim Ali Shah-1/6 share Ali Akbar son Of Ahmad Ali Shah- 1/6 share caste Syed Mashhadi residents. 84 Abdul Majeed Shah etc. sons Fazal Din Shah- half Mst. Sahib Nishan wife of Ahmad Shah 2/3 share- Safdar Hussain Shah-Zafar Ali Shah sons-share equal to' 14 share-Mst. Ghulam Janat - Zainab Fatima daughters- share equal to 7 share Mst. Kaneez Fatima- Share share Widow of Qaim Ali Shah-1/6 share-Ali Akbar Shah son of Ahmad Ali Shah-1/8 Share caste Syed Mashhadi share residents. 55 (Abdul Majeed Shah etc. sons of Fazal Din Shah are not owners in Jamabandi for the year, 1952-1953 but have become owners in Jamabandi for the year, 1956-1957 without any mutation). 85/1 Total 6 share as under Fazal Hussain son of Ameer Haider Shah-2 Share Ali Haider Shah son of Zaman Shah-3 share original owners- Irshad Hussain Shah son of Ali Haider Shah-1 Share caste Syed Mashhadi residents. 91 Total 9 share as under:- Fazal Shah son of Ameer Haider shah-2 share Ali Haider Shah son of Zaman shah-3 share original owners Irshad Hussain Shah son of Ali Haider Shah 1 share Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah sons Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi-3 share residents of Thullah Syedan 87 Total 7 Share as under:- Fazal Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah-2 Share Ali Haider Shah son of Zaman Shah 3 share- original owners Irshad Hussain son of Ali Haider Shah 1 share Fazal Din son of Sher Baz caste Qureshi Hashmi residents of Thullah Syedan-1 share 57 58 409 410 (Both entries 9 share and 7 share in 1952-1953 and 1956-1957 respectively were recorded incorrectly). 93 Name of owners Total 12 shares Fazal Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah-actual owners-4 share Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah-- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons Of Nazar Shah-1 share- Ashiq Hussain son of Qureshi Hussain Shah owner-1 share Ali Haider Shah son of Zaman Shah-2 Share Fatta Son of Mehnda-4 share owner-4 share caste Aawan- residents. 89 Name of Owners Total 36 shares Fazal Shah son of Ameer Haider Shah-12 Share Lal Hussain Shah son of Nazar Shah-1 share Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-1 share-Ali Haider Shah son of Zaman Shah-6 Share Sher- Ali shah Meer Alam Shah-Abdul Maieed Shah-- Abdul Hameed Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah sons of Fazal Din Shah-actual owners-6 shares- owners in possession-- 8 shares. 71 72 Meer Alam Shah were not owners in 1952-1953 but Made in 1956-1957 without supporting document. 93 Name of- owners Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-1/2 Share Lal Hussain Shah son of Nazar Shah caste Syed Mashhadi. Meer Alam Shah 1/6 share- Abdul Majeed Shah- Mehboob Elahi Muhammad Rafique Shah 1/6 Share sons Of Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi residents of Thulla Syedan "owners" in possession" 92 Name bf Owners Total 402 share Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qureshi Hussain Shah-250 share-Allah Ditta son of Hashoo 18 share Meer Alam Shah-67 share Abdul Majeed Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah-share equal to 67 share sons of Fazal Din caste Qureshi Hashmi residents "Original owners". 74 75 76 In 1952-1953, Qabza Malkan Only substituted with "Asl Malkan". 23 Name of Owners Total 24 share as under:- Qurban Hussain Shah son of Hayat Shah-3 share Inayat Hussain-Lal Hussain Shah-Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons Of Nazar Shah-6 share-Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-3 Share Mst. Nazir Fatima widow of Nazir Hussain Shah-3 share- Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah-9 Share caste Syed Mashhadi residents. 23 Name of Owners "Total 196 share " Lal Hussain Shah Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons of Nazar Shah--33 share- Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 share-Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-18 share Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah-36 share caste Syed Mashhadi. Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah- Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafiq Shah sons of Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi Hashmi Original owners "100 share" Residents of Thulla Syedan 146 Name of Owners Total 107 share as under:- Lal Hussain Shah son of Nazar Shah-11 share-- Ashiq Hussain Shah son of Qurban Hussain Shah-9 share Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-18 share Karam Hussain Shah son of Fazal Hussain Shah-36 Share caste Syed Mashhadi residents Abdul Majeed Shah-Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah "sons of Fazal Din-22 share" actual owners 11 share caste Qureshi residents of Thullah, Syedan. 194 195 196 409 Figure of 196 Share interpolated and entries made thereafter are incorrect and not supported by evidence. 34 Name of Owners Total 128 share Hussain Shah- Ibrar Hussain Shah- Ghulam Hussain Shah sons Of Nazar Shah-38 share- Ashiq Hussain sons of Qurban Hussain Shah-6 share-Mst. Hussain Bi widow of Mehtab Shah-6 share caste Syed Mashhadi - Chan Peer Shah son of Zaman Shah-12 Share Mst. Rani widow of Dadan 66 Share case Aawan residents- Owners in possession. 148 Name of Owners. Total 192 share as under:- Lal Hussain Shah son of Nazar Shah-19 share- Haqdar Shamlat Abdul Hameed Shah Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah sons of Fazal Din-actual owners-38 share caste Qureshi residents of Thulla Syedan Mst. Hussain Fatima widow of Mehtab Shah-9 share Chan Peer Shah son of Zaman Shah 18- Share Mst. Rani widow of Dadan 99 share "Fazal Din son of Sher Baz Qureshi owner in possession- 27 share" 409 Entered owner Without title document or order. 149 Mst. Karam Begum widow of Madad Shah = share fourth Sultan Shah-Ali Asghar Shah sons Of Syed Shah share Fourth Hussain Shah son of Karam Shah-Mst. Mehr Fatima widow of Ali Haider Shah-Mst. Mehr Nishan widow of Nawab Shah share equal to fourth Mst. Fazal Nishan widow Mehr Shah- eighth Ghulam Hussain Shah-Iqbal Hussain Shah-sons Ameer Ahmad Shah-Share Eight caste Syed Mashhadi residents 163 Total 192 share as under Amanat Hussain Shah- Ghulam Abbas Shah sons of Channan Bibi -share holder Shamlat rights-30 share Sultan Akbar Shah-24 share Ali Asghar Shah 21 Share owner in Possession 3-share Sons Said Shah- Hussain Shah son of Karam Shah real owner- 34 share owner in possession 12 share. Mst. Mehr Nazima widow of Ali Haider Shah -Mst. Mehr Nishan widow of Nawab Shah-sharer equal to 20 share Fazal Jan widow Mehr Shah 24 share Ghulam Hussain Shah-Iqbal Hussain Shah sons Ameer Ahmad Shah share Equal 24 Share caste Syed Mashhadi residents. "Abdul Maieed Shah-Abdul Hameed Shah-Mehr Alam Shah- Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah sons Fazal Din caste Qureshi residents Thulla Sydan owners in Possession 15 share original Owners 15 share" 252 253 254 Entered owner Without document. 222 Shamlat Deh According to share of ownership 229 Shamlat Deh according to share of ownership 2/3rd. Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah-Abdul Hameed Shah-son Fazal Din Shah caste Qureshi Hashmi residents 1/3 share 265 Shamlat Deh according to share of Ownership 2/3 share Abdul Majeed Shah Meer Alam Shah- Abdul Hameed Shah-Abdul Aziz Shah- Mehboob Elahi Shah- Muhammad Rafique Shah- Shah-son Fazal Din Shah 1/3 share 405 Entries in Jamabandi 1952-1953 and 1956-1957 were made incorrectly. They were not owners in shamtat Deh.

12. Interpolation and tampering of revenue record is floating as mentioned in para.11. No judgment, order or proof regarding acquisition of ownership is available with the respondents in support of entries made in their favour. Driving the parties to civil litigation, which is spread over decades, will not be in the interest of justice in a case of such a nature not involving any complicated question of fact calling for evidence. Jurisdiction vested in revenue hierarchy, if not exercised, then provisions of land revenue act are to become redundant.

13. Considered from all aspects, the entries made in the revenue record in clear disregard to provisions of section 45 Land Revenue Act, 1967, by practicing fraud cannot be given blessing. Such entries are required to be corrected as and when brought to the notice of revenue officers. The Chief Commissioner has closed his eyes to the factual position and went for technical knock out. Revisional jurisdiction exercised by him was arbitrary and thus his order is not sustainable.

14. For what has been discussed above, constitutional petitions Nos.1717 of 2006 and 1762 of 2006 are allowed, impugned order of Chief Commissioner dated 21-6-2006 is set aside, and, in consequence thereof, revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and orders passed by District Collector and Commissioner are restored. S.A.K./G-5/Isl. Petitions accepted.