Correction of revenue record

2021 YLR 1426 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 172Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters within the jurisdiction of Revenue OfficersCorrection of revenue recordScope

Appellant filed suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of suit land while contending therein that the same was wrongly entered by revenue authorities in the name of private defendant; that he approached the revenue authorities for correction of revenue record and that the Collector, after due proceedings, arrived at the conclusion that the land in dispute was 'Khalsa Sarkar'

Trial Court returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction

Review petition was dismissed

District Court, on being appealed, dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree

Validity

Appellant, against the order of Collector, should have filed an appeal before the next higher revenue authority

Civil court had no jurisdiction to try such a suit under S.172(2)(vi) of Land Revenue Act, 1967

Case was one of correction of revenue record and not of question of title between the parties

No illegality or irregularity, whatsoever, was committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decree

Appeal was dismissed.

2019 CLC 901 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. VII, R. 11 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Azad Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 53 & 172Suit for declaration and permanent injunctionCorrection of revenue recordJurisdiction of civil courtScopeRejection of plaint while entertaining application for temporary injunctionEffect

Trial Court while entertaining application for temporary injunction rejected the plaint on the ground that suit for correction of revenue record was not competent before civil Court and same was upheld by the Appellate Court

Validity

Plaint could be rejected at any time in terms of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. if same did come within the purview of clauses incorporated therein

Section 172 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1967 did exclude the jurisdiction of civil Court in the matter with regard to correction of any entry in the record of rights, periodical record and Register of mutation

Whenever any such entry did interfere with the right of a person pertaining to the land in question then he could approach to the Civil Court for declaration of his right in terms of S. 53 of Land Revenue Act, 1967

Present plaint was not restricted to correction of entries made by revenue authorities in ordinary course of business but plaintiff had questioned the entries in the revenue record on the ground that same were made illegally which had adversely affected his rights

Bar of S. 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 could not be pleaded as hurdle in exercise of jurisdiction of Civil Court in circumstances

Plaintiff had also sought decree for possession and perpetual injunction in the present case

Suit could not be dismissed mere on the ground that one of the prayed remedies in the plaint could not be granted while ignoring the other prayers made in the plaint

Matter of remedies had to be resolved by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit as to which of the remedies had to be granted or refused

Suit could not be dismissed while picking one remedy out of the several ones

Trial Court had rejected the plaint while entertaining the application for interim relief

No opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to explain the competency of suit in circumstances

Provisions of O. VII, R. 11 of C.P.C. were not meant to surprise the plaintiffs by invoking the same in order to non-suit them

Trial Court earlier rejected the application filed under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. and thereafter obtained written statement

Proper course for Trial Court was to frame issues and then provide opportunity of leading evidence to the parties in support of their respective claim and thereafter decide the controversy on merit

Rejection of plaint after commencement of proceedings by the Trial Court was not justified nor lawful

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision after providing the parties an opportunity to lead evidence

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2016 YLR 1005 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss. 44, 45, 163 & 164Correction of revenue record

Application for correction of revenue record pertaining to specific Khasra was allowed by Collector and appeal there against was dismissed

Matter pertained to determination of location of a water channel (Khal)

Irrigation Department, was in an exact position to resolve such controversy

District Collector while passing impugned order, obtained report of the department

Additional Commissioner, had also dismissed appeal on the same point, which was quite lawful

District Collector, had given permission to review the impugned entry

Petitioner would have still an opportunity to agitate his grievance before the Revenue Officer in terms of S.163(2) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967

Revision petition before Board of Revenue was disposed of with the direction to Revenue Officer to observe requirements of S.163, while proceeding under the order of District Collector.

2015 YLR 2319 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 44Writ petitionCompetenceCorrection of revenue recordNecessary party, non-impleadment ofEffectLaches, principle of

Review petition was pending adjudication before the revenue authority but such fact had been suppressed in the present writ petition

Writ petition had been filed after a period of nine months which was hit by laches

Public functionaries who passed the impugned order had not been arrayed in the line of respondents

Present matter was with regard to correction of record which had been decided by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction

Writ petition being incompetent, was dismissed.

2014 CLC 1334 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 11, 53, 164 & 172Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11Suit for declaration and injunctionCorrection of revenue recordCivil Court, jurisdiction ofPlaintiffs were aggrieved of revenue entry and filed civil suit to get disputed entry in revenue record cancelledTrial Court rejected the plaint and the order was maintained by Lower Appellate CourtValidity

If plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the orders of revenue authorities, they should have filed revision under S.164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, before Board of Revenue

Plaintiffs could not bypass the highest forum in revenue hierarchy

Any person aggrieved by some entry in record of rights could invoke provision of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Plaintiffs questioned order of cancellation of entry in their favour, thus provision of S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, was not applicable

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit was barred under S.11 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which was filed on account of any act or omission of any revenue officer unless plaintiffs could prove that they had presented appeal allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation of such suit

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two Courts below as there was no material irregularity or exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts or failure to exercise of jurisdiction vested in it

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.