1970 PLP 382 (SCMR)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, Lahore Seat, made in second appeal upholding the decree made by the Courts below in favour of the respondents in a suit brought by them under section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, for a declaration that the entries in the Record‑of Rights for the year 1956‑57 and in the subsequent girdawari of 1958 showing the petitioner as in possession of the land measuring 109 kanals, 17 marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 1765 in the revenue estate of Kotha Kalan, were not correct. The land in question is admittedly a part of the Shamlat land which was unbroken and described as "Ghair Mumkin Gar" in the revenue papers and was shown to be "Maqbooza Malkan Deh", prior to the impugned entry in the "Misal‑i‑Haqiat" of 1956‑

57. According to the petitioner, an area of 700 kanals of Shamlat land was acquired by him by purchase from different proprietors. The Courts below have held that none of the vendors of the petitioner was in possession of any part of the Shamlat land comprised in Khasra No. 1765 and that the impugned entry in the "Misal‑i‑Haqiat" of 1956‑57 showing the petitioner to be in possession immediately after the purchase transactions made by him, has no valid basis. The position with regard to revenue entries of‑the disputed land is summed up in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as follows :‑‑ "In the Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1953 (copy Exh. P. 2) one Painda son of Nadir took possession of 5 kanals and converted into maira. Rest of the land remained ghair mumkin bhura. It appears that the said Painda left possession and the entire khasra number again came to be recorded as Maqbooza Malkan in Kbarif 1954. In the next harvest (Rabi 1955), one Muhammad Ashraf Khan is shown to have acquired possession of 18 kanals, 10 marlas vide mutation No. 2146. In the same harvest, another area of 5 kanals is shown to be in possession of the Military authorities as camp area. In Kharif 1956, 14 kanals, 10 marlas of land was shown to be in possession of Rana Zahiruddin who then transferred to the Commander in‑Chief by mutation No. 2173. The bulk of the land measur ing 114 kanals, 15 marlas remained Maqbooza Malkan. Khasra girdowari for Kharif 1957 is not available on record." No exception can be taken to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court made in second appeal confirming the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below that the petitioner or his predecessors‑in‑title not being in possession of the disputed field, the impugned entry showing him to be in possession was wrong. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1957 which was traceable, showed the petitioner to be in possession of the disputed field and that it was deliberately removed to do away with the evidence of the petitioner's possession. We can find no basis for this argument as it may well be that the aforesaid entry was adverse to the petitioner. However, there being no indication as to what was that entry, no presumption can be drawn from its non existence either way. The revenue entries preceding the impugned entry in the Record‑of‑Rights of 1956‑57 are against the petitioner and in view of that, no basis exists for the impugned entry in the petitioner's favour showing him to be in possession. It was also urged by the learned counsel that a khatauni of the land in question was prepared during the Settlement operations which were in progress in this estate at the relevant time in 1957, which showed that the petitioner held possession of this land and that it was on the strength of this khatauni that the impugned entry in the jamabandi of 1956‑57 was made. The learned counsel desired to show us this khatauni on the ground that it was also presented at the time of the argument in the High Court, although not brought on the record of the appeal. The khatauni in question was not relied upon at the trial nor was it, produced by way of additional evidence at any stage of the appellate proceedings. Obviously, we are unable to give any effect to it at this stage. As no valid ground is made out for interference with the orders of the High Court, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.