Record of Rights

Suit was decreed in favour of petitioner/pre-emptor by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court but High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit

Validity

When a full owner of a Khewat sells a specific Khasra number part of Khewat, through sale in favour of a vendee, such vendee becomes full owner of that specific Khasra number

In next Register Haqdaran Zamin, new Khewet is created in favour of such vendee

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court, dismissing suit for pre-emption

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of order passed by revenue authorities refusing to incorporate change of its name and had treated the same as sale in favour of petitioner

Validity

Provision of S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 reflects that the same is applicable on acquiring of any right as land owner or a tenant

Words "a person" in S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 further clarifies that the Legislature has envisaged acquisition of any right or interest as land-owner or a tenant from one person to another

Dispute had arisen when request was made to revenue authorities to incorporate the change in name of the company from "National Sugar Industries Limited" to "Popular Sugar Mills Limited", which change had already been permitted by Registrar of the Companies, under Ss. 39 & 40 of Companies Ordinance, 1984

Mere change of name did not change legal status of petitioner company or its distinct personality and such change entailed no difference to rights or obligations

High Court set aside order passed by revenue authorities as application or request to incorporate change of name was not a sale

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of order passed by revenue authorities refusing to incorporate change of its name and had treated the same as sale in favour of petitioner

Validity

Provision of S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 reflects that the same is applicable on acquiring of any right as land owner or a tenant

Words "a person" in S. 42 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 further clarifies that the Legislature has envisaged acquisition of any right or interest as land-owner or a tenant from one person to another

Dispute had arisen when request was made to revenue authorities to incorporate the change in name of the company from "National Sugar Industries Limited" to "Popular Sugar Mills Limited", which change had already been permitted by Registrar of the Companies, under Ss. 39 and 40 of Companies Ordinance, 1984

Mere change of name did not change legal status of petitioner company or its distinct personality and such change entailed no difference to rights or obligations

High Court set aside order passed by revenue authorities as application or request to incorporate change of name was not a sale

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Main objective of land settlement is to formalize and make a record of actual facts, recognizing ownership rights, title, interest and liabilities of indigenous humans over unsettled lands they physically possess, utilize and have control over

Through settlement proceedings, authorities prepare a record of right for fiscal purposes enabling government to assess revenue and taxes to be collected from the produce of land owners concerned

Process includes preparation of pedigree of tribes and sub-tribes, recognize and record water and grazing rights of tribes and sub-tribes, prepare maps and demarcate lands for public purpose, such as graveyard, mosques, educational buildings and other amenities

For the purpose of conducting settlement, the settlement authorities also follow principles reflected in Para-I of Chapter-1 (introductory) of Punjab Settlement Manual (1930)

Book-II of the Manual relates to Record of Rights and Chapt. VIII of the Manual is about tenure and rights of land owners

Settlement Authorities follow these provisions while conducting settlement proceedings.

After creation of Pakistan, the British Balochistan and Balochistan Agency merged its sovereignty into Pakistan and came under its administrative control but land owners did not surrender their collective or individual rights of ownership of their properties to State, that is why after creation of Pakistan, lands which were recorded by the Britishers on the names of private persons either collectively or individually, were renamed on their names, whereas only the properties recorded in the name of British Administration, were transferred on the name of Central Government and subsequently, after establishment of the Provinces, it was transferred on the name of Provincial Government, but still most of the land in the Province is unsettled

Whenever land was required for the establishment of Government buildings for amenities purpose like District Administration Offices, Courts, buildings, school buildings, hospitals and roads etc., Federal or Provincial Government used to acquire lands subject to compensation or through gift or upon certain terms and conditions from land owners concerned, considering them as owners irrespective of the fact that the lands were settled or unsettled

Provision of S.50(1) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 speaks about two specific dates i.e. 18-11-1871 and 17-07-1879 and only in respect of territories where Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1897 and Sindh Land Revenue Code, 1879 were so enforced

Provision of Land Revenue Act, 1967, is time bound and pertains to limited areas, where the earlier enactments were so enforced

By or before 18-11-1871 and 17-07-1879 none of the three enactments were enforced in British Balochistan and Balochistan Agency, therefore, provision of S. 50(1) of Land Revenue Act, 1967, was not made applicable to the Province of Balochistan

For such reasons, while taking over charge of the two areas, the British Administration did not claim ownership of unsettled lands, rather accepted indigenous tribes as owners of the same

Most of the lands were claimed by landowners concerned as rightful owners and such lands could not be considered as ownerless properties

Inhabitants of different tribes and sub-tribes were presumed to be owners of their respective lands

Government always required land for public purposes such as education, health, research, sports, parks, dams, water supply schemes, mosques, graveyards and other amenities purposes

Government was required to earmark reasonable land only for such purposes during the course of settlement proceedings

Presumption of ownership as provided by S. 50 (2) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 with regard to unsettled land was in favour of land owners concerned

High Court asked the Government to conduct settlement proceedings to prepare record of rights and to continue settlement proceedings periodically, in accordance with law

Government could frame policies, introduce land reforms and make enactments to deal with land issues, accordingly

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Purpose of preparation of revenue record is to maintain a record of rightful owner of land for the purposes of revenue collection

While preparing record of rights or mutating any property, it is incumbent upon revenue authorities to adopt a procedure provided by S.42 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Revenue officer has to mutate a property in record on the basis of inheritance, registered sale deed executed on the basis of transaction legally taken place between parties or by or under an order or decree of Court.

Burden of proof would lie on a person who had desired any court to pass judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts

Person who had asserted facts must prove that such facts did exist

Heavy burden would lie on the plaintiffs to prove that suit land was in their ownership as they had desired the court to pass a judgment and decree in their favour declaring the suit land to be their ownership

Mere bald assertion or any omnibus statement would not prove the existence of any fact which was required to be proved through some tangible evidence

Presumption of truth and correctness was attached to record of rights

Such presumption was rebuttable but strong and cogent evidence was required for the same

No reliable evidence had been brought on record by the plaintiffs to brush aside the longstanding entries in the revenue record in the names of defendants

Impugned entries were made in the year 1985-86 but same were challenged on 17-12-2008

Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land

Admission made against an established fact would be of no legal effect

Ownership and possession of defendants over the suit land had been proved through documentary evidence

Appellate Court had not properly appreciated the evidence in true perspective and had committed an illegality by decreeing the suit

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was accepted in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed that their father purchased land in question through registered sale deed-dated 20-10-1959, and mutation was sanctioned; that said property was obtained on rent in the year 1965, but through mutation dated 23-9-1984 same was transferred to the Government as State land, illegally

Petitioners, contended that their property be restored in their names

District Officer (Revenue) allowed review petition of the petitioners and restored land to the petitioners

Government, filed appeal before Commissioner which was accepted

Validity

Petitioners claimed ownership of impugned land on the basis of purchase of said land by their predecessor-in-interest

Record had shown that vendee of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not the owner of the land, he, therefore, could not sell the ownership rights

Purchases of such land could not be in a better position than the seller

Order passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was lawful and warranted no interference

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Person entered as tentant-at-will in column of cultivation, for being a tenant, could not claim adverse possession.

Contention that a mutation was not tenable on the ground that the same was not sanctioned in the estate to which the land belonged was contrary to the law as provisions of S.42 of the Land Revenue Act were not mandatory and mere fact that a mutation had been sanctioned in different estate would not be a ground to invalidate the transaction embodied in such mutation.

Presumption of correctness is attached to jamabandi.

No presumption of truth is attached to entries of such Khasra Girdawari, which are not in line with that of Register Haqdaran Zamin, to which presumption of truth is attached.

Suit-land as alleged was brought under cultivation with permission of Malik­-e-Aala, Abadkari fees "Jhori was paid to him

Plaintiffs, according to short Wajib­-ul-Arz, became Malik-e-Adna and by virtue of para. 22 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, plaintiffs became owners of suit-land

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court

Appellate Court reversed the judgment

Validity

Jamabandi did not establish that the person to whom "Jhori" was paid. was Aala Malik" and receipt did not specify the area and land for which "Jhori " was paid

"Notore" created certain rights but it could only be done with the consent of the `Aala Malik"-Vital facts having not been proved, plaintiffs did not become "Malik" Adna "

Plea based on para. 22 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959 read with the Notification dated 3-371959 was neither pleaded, nor was proved

Entry" Basharah Malkana Bawaja Nautor" was not sufficient to defeat the title of the owners

Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

If there is a conflict between the entries in the Khasra Gardawari and the entries in the Record of Rights, the latter prevails.

Entries in column 9 of record of rights (Jamabandi), wherein plaintiffs were recorded as would not change nature of their possession as adverse, especially when in revenue record beginning right from the year 1951 till to date, they and their predecessors-in-interest were recorded as tenants-at-will on payment of rent and expression had not been of incorporated in the revenue record.

Wrong entry in a Record of Rights being a clerical mistake could be corrected at any time by Collector for such entry did not confer any right or acquire any sanctity by repeated repetitions in the Record of Rights.

Mutation should be in presence of parties and with their consent or upon due notice to them.

Usually it is prepared by Patwari/Girdawar whose certificate thereon is considered enough.

Record ought to be reconstructed where it was possible.

Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.40-Record-of-rights-Revision-of-record of rights-Held, relatable to justification found in each case and depends on merits thereof-High Court, on examining contentions of petitioner, holding that revision was made after due enquiry at spot and that same could not be considered to be arbitrary-No justification for interference with order of High Court.

Presumption, attaching to-Rebuttable.

Wajib-ul-arz and riwaj-i-aam Distinction-Presumption of correctness attaches to entries of custom in wajib-ul-arz- Such entries subject to periodical revision in light of changes in outlook and conduct of residents of village concerned-Later entries inconsistent with earlier entries-Custom as recorded in earlier wajib-ul-arz deemed to have ceased.

Record of Rights Record of Rights-Evidence of possession-Presumption rebuttable.

Record of Rights Not judicial records.

Record of Rights -Entries in, presumed true only until contrary is proved in Civil Court. The entries in the record-of-rights are not conclusive evidence of the facts recorded therein and such entries shall be presumed to be true only until the contrary is proved in Civil Court. Thus in cases where any party is aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Authorities it is open to him to challenge the mutation proceedings on the regular side of the Civil Court.

Record of Rights -Presumption of truth as regards entries in all columns-Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 44.