1988 PLP 688 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 28th November, 1982. The land in question belonged to Muhammad Sher respondent No. 3 until he surrendered it under the Land Reforms Act of 1977 in November 1977. Before that this land was under cultivation of Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2 since 1945. The present dispute arose when on 29‑4‑1979 Khan Muhammad petitioner moved an application for correction of Khasra Girdawri on the ground that on the expiry of the 30 years lease in 1974 the tenancy was abandoned by Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2 and instead he was inducted as the tenant. The Khasra Girdawri, whose correction was applied for showed Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2 to be in possession of the land in dispute until Rabi 1977. For the crops of Kharif and Rabi 1978 the Khasra Girdawri showed that Muhammad Sher respondent No. 3 the owner of the land was in self‑cultivation of the land. An inquiry was conducted in pursuance of the application moved by the petitioner by the Tehsidar. He recorded the statement of Muhammad SbPr respondent No. 3 who gave statement in favour of the petitioner and stated that entries of Khasra Girdawri of Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978 in his name were not correct as he was not cultivating the land. The report was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Jhans who did not agree with the report of the Tehsildar and rejected the application of the petitioner for correction of the Khasra Girdawri vide his order dated 28‑10‑1979. The petitioner challenged the orders before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 2‑11‑1980 reversed the finding of the District Collector and directed that the entries be corrected. The respondent No. 2 then challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner in the Board of Revenue and the learned Member vide his order dated 21‑2‑1.982 set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored the orders of the Collector dated 28‑10‑1979. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Board of Revenue in the present writ petition.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that since Muhammad Sher did not challenge the orders of the Additional Commissioner, the decision of the Additional Commissioner to that extent had attained finality and the Member Board of Revenue has travelled beyond his authority at least to the extent of entries in favour of Muhammad Sher respondent No. 3.

3. It is an admitted fact that the Tehsildar who conducted the inquiry did not hear Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2, who is the real contestant m the case. There is, therefore, enough support for the orders of the Board of Revenue as far as this aspect of the case is concerned. As regards the merits of the case it is obvious that Muhammad Sher respondent No. 3, the original owner of the land is left with no interest in the land after he surrendered it in Land Reforms of 1977. His keenness to make statement in favour of the present petitioner although presumably made against his own interest, regarding two entries in two crops of 1977 and 1978 on the other hand, shows complicity and connivance with the petitioner which keenness is not evident as far as the entries in the Khasra Girdawris after 1974 are concerned. Muhammad Sher in his statement before the Tehsildar was categorical in suggesting that the entries be made in favour of the present petitioner from Kharif 1975, although he took no such steps when the entries were continued even after Rabi 1974, when the 30 years lease m favour of Muhammad Hayat expired. Not only was he not concerned with the change in entries there but he went to the extent of disclaiming his own possession of Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978. One does not have to travel far to see the reasons of the conflicting keenness of Muhammad Sher. It is obviously the Land Reforms Act of 1977 which has impelled Muhammad Sher to make a statement in 1977 in favour of the petitioner and against Muhammad Hayat respondent No.

2. Muhammad Sher is not concerned with the land. Therefore, his statement in favour of the one or against the other can have no bearing on the case. The Tehsildar has based his recommendations on the statement of Muhammad Sher. He did not examine Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2 against whose interest he made the recommendations. The Collector was, therefore, justified in rejecting the report of the Tehsildar and deciding to continue with the entries in the Khasra Girdawari which had been consistent for 33 years. The order of the Board of Revenue of concurring with the finding of the Collector is, therefore, entirely justified.

4. As regards the case of Muhammad Sher and the contention of the learned counsel that the order of the Additional Commissioner to the extent of entries of Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978 recorded in favour of Muhammad Sher has attained finality, it is enough to observe that Muhammad Hayat has impleaded both Khan Muhammad petitioner and Muhammad Sher respondent No. 3 as respondents before the Board of Revenue. The orders of the Board of Revenue are, therefore, valid both against the present petitioner and Muhammad Sher ' respondent No.

3. The fact that Muhammad Sher does not challenge the orders of the Additional Commissioner do not help the petitioner's case because Muhammad Sher had disclaimed his possession of the land in Kharif 1977 and Rabi 1978. It was, therefore, a fight between the present petitioner and Muhammad Hayat respondent No. 2 alone which had been set at rest by the order of the Board of Revenue of 21‑2‑1982.

5. In view of the above considerations, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs. M.Y.H./1657/L Writ petition dismissed.