2026 PLP 504 (CLC)

MEHR KHALID AHMAD, MEMBER/SECRETARY.

This consolidated judgment arises out of two connected revision petitions, R.o.R. No. 560/2022 and R.o.R. No. 2130/2024, instituted under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Section 7 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, calling into question the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 14-10-2021 and 29-05-2024 passed respectively by the learned Additional Commissioner (Coordination), Dera Ghazi Khan und the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue/Consolidation), Dera Ghazi Khan Division. Through the impugned order dated 14-10-2021, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of respondent No.6, Mst. Manzooran Mai, and directed implementation of the earlier order dated 24-11-2018 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Layyah, in respect of correction of record in her favour without notice to the petitioners, thereby resulting in cancellation of adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 passed in favour of the petitioners. Through the subsequent impugned order dated 29-05-2024, the appellate authority again interfered with the adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Layyah, for fresh decision. The petitioners, aggrieved by both the impugned orders, have sought restoration of their vested rights flowing from the lawful adjustment of 2004, founded upon civil court decrees which had attained finality up to the Honourable Lahore High Court.

2. The brief facts leading to the present lis are that one Qazi Qul Ahmad Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was recorded owner of land measuring 210 Kanals in Chak No.150/TDA, Mauza Lohanch Thal Jhandi, District Layyah, which he transferred to Khalid Saifullah, predecessor of petitioners Nos. 1 to 5, through registered sale deed No. 2821 dated 25-10-1971. On the basis of this transaction, the petitioners applied for adjustment of land in Chak No. 150/TDA. After completing codal formalities including verification of title, field reports, scrutiny of revenue records and reliance upon decree dated 26-04-1993 passed in favour of their predecessor, the competent authority allowed adjustment on 03-11-2004 and incorporated the same through Mutation Nos. 889 and

890. The entries remained intact for more than one and a half decade and were never challenged until respondent No.6, who claimed to be daughter of Allah Dewaya of Mouza Sarishta Thal Jhandi, secured order dated 24-11-2018 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Layyah, followed by order dated 14-10-2021 by the Additional Commissioner (Coordination), Dera Ghazi Khan, which directly affected the petitioners' adjustment without impleading or hearing them. Meanwhile, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in R.O.R. No. 2130/24 also instituted appeal challenging adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 which culminated in impugned order dated 29-05-2024 remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners contend that both impugned orders are without lawful authority, void ab initio, and destructive of their vested rights recognised by civil court decrees and long-standing revenue record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length that their predecessor was the lawful owner and transferee of the disputed land by virtue of the sale deed of 1971, followed by a series of judicial pronouncements culminating in the decree dated 26-04-1993, upheld by appellate fora and affirmed by the Honourable Lahore High Court on 11-11-2021. On the basis of such decree, adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 was lawfully passed and duly implemented in revenue record. He contended that respondents Nos. 6 to 8 in R.O.R. No. 560/22 had no nexus with Chak No.150/TDA and their claims pertained to Mouza Sarishta Thal Jhundi, yet the impugned order dated 14-10-2021 illegally disturbed the petitioners adjustment in excess of pleadings. He urged that the order was passed without notice to the petitioners, in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, and disregarded the binding civil court decrees. With regard to impugned order dated 29-05-2024, learned counsel submitted that the appeal was barred by limitation of nearly a decade, the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to remand under Section 163-A of the Land Revenue Act and Rule 6-A of the Land Revenue Rules, and the order is coram non judice. He further argued that the revenue record carries presumption of correctness under Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and could not be unsettled without cogent evidence. He prayed that both impugned orders be set aside and lawful adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 be restored.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Mst. Manzooran Mai opposed the revision petitions submitting that she is the sole legal heir and real daughter of Allah Dewaya, a recognised landowner of Mouza Sarishta Thal Jhandi, whose entitlement under the Thal Development Act, 1949 stood unlawfully curtailed. It was argued that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Layyah, vide order dated 24-11-2018 rightly ordered for correction of record acknowledging her entitlement after due process, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 14-10-2021. It was emphasised that the petitioners never challenged the foundational order dated 24-11-2018 and their sole grievance was misconceived. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners' adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 was concluded in haste within 28 days, without proper scrutiny, and on the basis of a belated claim under a sale deed of 1971. He argued that her claim was supported by Jamabandis of 1940-41 and 1944-45 proving her father's entitlement of 4718 Kanals and 17 Marlas, and that the impugned order merely restored the record to its original form without prejodice to the petitioners, Counsel for respondent No.7 added that the adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 had already been cancelled under the basic order dated 24-11-2018, while counsel for respondent No. 8 submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by enhancing right of return of respondent No.6 though not authorised under the TDA Act. Allegations of collusion between respondent No.6 and revenue officers were also raised.

5. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 11 contended that the land impugned and adjusted in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 03-11-2004 had already been adjusted in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of respondants Nos. 5 to 11 through order dated 08-05-1974, and therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner rightly cancelled the order dated 29-05-2024 and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The counsel further submitted that the order dated 18-10-2012 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, whereby the order dated 03-11-2004 was cancelled, is still holding the field and has not been assailed by the petitioners. The counsel, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant revisions.

6. The learned State Representative, Mr. Aziz Ahmad, on behalf of Deputy Commissioner Layyah, furnished a detailed report acknowledging ownership of petitioners' predecessor, adjustment order of 2004, and serious allegations of fraudulent adjustments in favour of Mst. Manzooran Mai across various Chakooks. The report stated that the adjustment record of Mauza Lohanch Thal Jhundi was examined, showing that Qul Ahmad Khan son of Abu Bakar Khan, caste Pathan, was the owner of 210 Kanals. His ownership was transferred via Registered Deed No. 2821 dated 25-10-1971 in favour of Khalid Saifullah and others. Out of this, 209 Kanals 08 Marlas situated in Chak No. 150/TDA was proposed for adjustment in Register Adjustment Wanda No. 686, where a note regarding a civil court stay order was recorded. Khalid Saifullah and others submitted an application to the District Officer (Revenue), Layyah, seeking adjustment in terms of Wanda No. 685, Mauza Lohanch Thal Jhundi, Chak No. 150/TDA. The District Officer (Revenue), Layyah, upon finding entitlement proved, ordered adjustment of 209 Kanals 08 Marlas in Chak No. 150/TDA in the name of Qul Ahmad Khan and/or his transferees on 03-11-2004. The report further stated that Allah Diwaya son of Khaira, caste Jat Wandar, was a local landowner of Mauza Sarishta Thal Jhundi, holding a total of 2450 Kanals 09 Marlas. Out of this, 589 Kanals 12 Marlas were inferior, 65 Kanals bilanotified, and 448 Kanals 18 Marlas ghair mazrua. His total right of return was 1103 Kanals 14 Marias, against which adjustment of 1054 Kanals 06 Marlas was made, leaving a balance of 49 Kanals 06 Marlas. It was also noted that Mst. Manzooran, daughter of Allah Diwaya/wife of Ahmad Nawaz, filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Layyah, for correction of Mutation No. 1386 (year 1941), which was decided by ADC(R) Layyah on 24-11-2018, holding that the order would not apply to other adjustments. The said order was challenged by Mst. Manzooran daughter of Allah Diwaya before the Additional Commissioner (Coordination), D.G. Khan, mentioning Chaks 396/TDA, 397/TDA, 398/TDA, 399 etc.. secking mutation from TDA to her favour through correction of record and implementation in the mentioned chakooks. The Additional Commissioner (Coordination), D.G. Khan, vide order dated 14-10-2021, directed ADC(R) Layyah to implement the order dated 24-11-2018 as per possession and entitlement of the petitioner through correction of record, if there is no legal impediment. Meanwhile, Muhammad Aslam Tahir, Advocate, filed applications alleging that Mst. Manzooran had fraudulently managed to transfer TDA land in her name without lawful adjustment and prayed for initiation of criminal proceedings against the officials involved. He referred to TDA policy, classification of land (inferior, superior, cultivated, uncultivated) and ownership of Allah Diwaya. The report emphasized that no claimant in Thal could be recognised as owner without adjustment, whereas Mst. Manzooran and her predecessor were made owners in several Chakooks without lawful adjustment.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. It is manifest that the impugned order dated 14-10-2021 was passed without notice to the petitioners, thereby offending the settled principle of natural justice that no person shall be condemned unheard, as laid down inter alia in PLD 2010 SC 1001. Moreover, the claim of respondent No.6 pertained to Mauza Sarishta Thal Jhandi, whereas the petitioners' lawful adjustment relates to Chak No.150/TD)A, Layyah. By disturbing petitioners' adjustment, the Additional Commissioner travelled beyond pleadings and jurisdiction. Further, the adjustment order dated 03-11-2004 was passed on the basis of a civil court decree dated 26-04-1993 which has attained finality.

8. It is well settled law that revenue officers are bound to honour civil court judgments which cannot be upset or reversed by revenue authorities as settled in 2008 SCMR 1658 and 2012 PLD 160 (Lahore). The impugned order dated 24-11-2018 itself was beyond jurisdiction, as the Deputy Commissioner/ Notified Officer under TDA Act had not referred the matter to ADCR to determine right of return pertaining to land in Mauza Sarishta Thal Jhandi where no land was available, yet its implementation illegally affected pure TDA land in various tehsils of District Layyah. The request of the respondent Mst. Manzooran before ADCR Layyah was for correction of mutation No. 1386 (ala malkiat) and 1387 (adna malkiat) dated 07-06-1941 but the ADCR did not consider the fact that he was not competent to correct long standing entries and particularly when the respondent Mst. Manzooran Mai's father did not challenge these mutations during his lifetime nor is it established that Mst. Manzooran is the sole lawful owner and competent to file the application for correction of record on behalf of all legal heirs. The revenue authorities should take their hands off from correcting the long-standing entries, especially those reflected in successive jamabandies. The ADCR and the appellate forum were not competent to undo such longstanding entries at a belated stage in a summary manner as held in 2013 CLC 1743 (Board of Revenue), 2008 PLD 612, 2015 SCMR 1708.

9. Moreover, according to West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation para No.22 issued on 03-03-1959, Ala Malkiat stood abolished and no compensation shall be claimed or paid to any person affected by the abolition. However, the ADCR while passing the order dated 24-11-18 casually ignored this binding legal requirement and ordered correction of record of Ala Malkiat as prayed by the respondent Manzooran Mai and as per the report dated 18-04-18 of adjustment Qanoongo and NTO Report dated 08-10-18, without application of his judicial mind. The respondent Manzooran Mai n first application addressed to Deputy Commissioner Layyah prayed for correction of mutation No. 1387 dated 07-06-1941 of her predecessor in interest, Later on, the said respondent filed a writ petition before the Honourable Lahore High Court where her request was limited to disposal of her application pending before Deputy Commissioner Layyah for determination of right of return under slab system of her predecessor in interest, under section 21(2) of TDA Act and the order of the Honourable High Court dated 08-03-18 contained no specific direction for correction of record and merely directed to dispose of the pending application of Mst. Manzooran through a speaking order after hearing all the concerned. The ADCR did not pass a speaking order in compliance of the direction of the Honourable High Court nor heard all the concerned parties, which vitiates the order with legal infirmities. The Additional Commissioner (Coordination) while conceding to the fact that the matter is of determination of correct right of return of the predecessor in interest of the respondent Mst. Manzooran Mai accepted the appeal without seeking any possession report or hearing the concerned parties or requisitioning the record, by again passing a vague and conditional order, which does not fulfil the requirements of Section 24/A of General Clauses Act and is liable to be set aside. It is also well settled law that where procedure has been provided for doing a thing in a particular manner then the same should be done in the prescribed manner or not at all as held in 2024 SCMR 2129.

10. With regard to the second impugned order dated 29-05-2024, the appellate authority acted in disregard of limitation, ignored binding civil decree dated 26-04-1993, and exceeded jurisdiction by remanding the case though no such power vests under the Land Revenue Act. As far as the orders dated 08-05-1974 and 18-10-2012 are concerned, the core issue raised therein has already been adjudicated up to the level of the Honourable High Court in Civil Revision No. 225-D/2009, wherein the Honourable Court held that the petitioners had established their possession. However, the learned Assistant Commissioners failed to take into consideration the binding decisions of the civil courts, which had already been duly upheld by the appellate as well as the revisional courts. The long-standing entries of revenue record in favour of petitioners enjoy presumption of correctness which could not be casually unsettled. Moreover, the concerned revenue officers/ADLRS/LROs implemented the said orders at their own sweet will as nothing specifie is mentioned in the impugned order, what is the error in record and how and in which manner it is to be corrected. In this way over 3000 Kanals of pure TDA owned land has been mutated in favour of the respondent Mst. Manzooran who subsequently sold it to various people illegally. The subsequent sale of land by respondent Manzooran Mai during pendency of lis is illegal and void. The record further reveals serious allegations of fraud on the part of respondent No.6 and her predecessor who were made recorded owners in Thal area under the garb of correction of record without valid adjustment, in collusion with the subordinate revenue authorities, warranting inquiry and penal action against concerned officials.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, both revision petitions are accepted. The impugned orders dated 14-10-2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Coordination), Dera Ghazi Khan, and dated 29-05-2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue/Consolidation), Dera Ghazi Khan Division, along with order dated 24-11-2018 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Layyah, are declared to be without lawful authority, void ab initio, of no legal effect, and are hereby set aside. Any action taken pursuant to these impugned orders in the revenue record shall stand annulled forthwith.

12. The District Collector, Layyah, is also directed to restore the entries in the revenue record in respect of Chak No. 150/TDA to the extent of the lawful adjustment made vide order dated 03-11-2004 on the basis of the civil court decree, vide Mutation Nos. 889 and 890, in favour of the petitioners, and to ensure handing over of possession to the petitioners after due process of law. The District Collector shall also immediately resume all the impugned land in favour of the TDA that is illegally adjusted/mutated in favour of Mst. Manzooran Mai and / or her subsequent vendees and shall retrieve the possession forthwith in favour of TDA and abso initiate enquiry against all delinquent officers/officials with necessary penal and departmental action as per law. A certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to Deputy Commissioner, Layyah, for sending compliance report to Registrar, Board of Revenue South Punjab/Punjab within 15 days. The case file shall be consigned to record room after due completion. MQ/7/Rev Revisions allowed.