Land Records Manual

According to para.3.6 of the Land Records Manual, a merit list of all Patwar persons in each sub-division according to the year-wise commencement of the Patwar Course shall be maintained by the Sub-divisional Collector/Political Assistant

No distinction existed regarding the "settlement" and the "field" course and vacancies were to be filled up with the ready information about the availability of eligible persons in the Sub-Division irrespective of the fact whether a person had passed the "field" or the "settlement course" from the Patwar School

Rules governing appointment of Patwaris clearly directed appointment of Patwaris strictly in accordance with Service Rules and the Recruitment Policy(Notification No. SO.XLX-1-55/58 - Part II)

High Court directed that the Authorities were required to display the merit list and the candidates were to be given appointment according to it, subject to passing of test interview and no discrimination was to be made

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Grievance of petitioners was that they were Patwar-pass persons and under paras. 3.6 and 3.12 of Land Records Manual, they. were entitled to be posted as Patwaris

Petitioners had assailed advertisement for appointment of Patwaris published in different dailies

Validity

Government of Punjab for the last so many years through its own sources as well as with the help of international organizations was striving to computerize revenue record of various districts in the Province

To meet object of computerization of record, rules with regard to Revenue Administration Posts, including Patwaris were accordingly enforced in year, 2009, and maintaining of list of Patwar-pass candidates in terms of paras 3.6 and 3.12 of Land Records Manual, had lost its efficacy with efflux of time and to meet requirements in the age of information and technology for the purpose of computerization of revenue record

High Court did not find any factual or legal infirmity in advertisement issued by authorities

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

When the mutations had taken due effect in the successive jamabandis and the entire case of' the party was not set out on the basis of any clerical error etc. but on the foundation of fraud, such intricate questions (of fraud, etc.) could not be determined by the Revenue Authorities after lapse of 19 years time in a summary manner and in summary proceedings and that too without enabling the affected party to produce any evidence

No exception could be taken to the impugned order of Board of Revenue to the effect that application was time barred; that no application was submitted for condonation, giving reasons for the delay; that no determination was on record by the District Collector as to why the time was being condoned; and that after 20 years mutation had been incorporated in successive Jamabandis and longstanding entry in the Revenue Record should not be changed by the Revenue Officers and for such cases the appropriate forum was the civil court

Issues involved in the matter thus, could only be resolved by Civil Court, where the parties shall have full chance of proving and disproving their respective pleas.

Wajibul Arz prepared by public servant at the time of settlement, carries statutory presumption of correctness attached to it

Wajibul Arz describes rights and liabilities of villagers inter se, such as enjoyment of proceeds of common land and rights of grazing on common land etc.

Upper age limit for the candidates was 25 years and only candidates already in service as Patwaris were eligible for training beyond the age of 25 years

Petitioners could not show that they were enlisted candidates/accepted candidates and their names appeared in the register for Patwari candidates

Such persons could have certificates from certain Patwaris, but they did not have any document to the effect that they had submitted applications for the entry of their names in the register and their names appeared/entered in such a list

Petitioners, in circumstances, did not fall in the category of accepted candidates

Petitioners were not officially appointed/employed Patwaris and there was no speciality in their case for special permission/exemption from passing through the training course before examination

Petitioners fell under the category of un-accepted candidates and it was the discretion of Director Land Records to either allow or refuse admission to petitioners to the Patwar Training School

Petitioners, in circumstances were not entitled to the concessions available to Patwaris who were already in active service of the Government.

Upper age limit for the candidates was 25 years and only candidates already in service as Patwaris were eligible for training beyond the age of 25 years

Petitioners could not show that they were enlisted candidates/accepted candidates and their names appeared in the register for Patwari candidates

Such persons could have certificates from certain Patwaris, but they did not have any document to the effect that they had submitted applications for the entry of their names in the register and their names appeared/entered in such a list

Petitioners, in circumstances, did not 'ball in the category of accepted candidates

Petitioners were not officially appointed/employed Patwaris and there was no speciality in their case for special permission/exemption from passing through the training course before examination

Petitioners fell under the category of un-accepted candidates and it was the discretion of Director Land Records to either allow or refuse admission to petitioners to the Patwar Training School

Petitioners, in circumstances were not entitled to the concessions available to Patwaris who were already in active service of the Government.

Entry/ sanctioning of mutation for correction of entries in Jamabandi is prohibited under chap. 7, Cl. 7.30 of Land Records Manual

Clerical corrections, in consequence of patent facts are allowed.

Collector relying on inquiry report of Revenue staff, accepted the application of petitioner and ordered for correction of the entry

Respondent assailed the order of Collector before Appellate Authority but having been unsuccessful, filed revision application before Board of Revenue which was allowed and the order for correction of entry was set aside

Plea raised by the petitioner was that any error occurring in Revenue Record could be ordered to be corrected by Revenue hierarchy without resort to declaratory suit

Validity

Entry in Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1976, must have been incorporated in not less than six Jamabandis till the time, the petitioner filed application for its correction in the year, 2000

In presence of dispute regarding possession as canvassed by the parties in the case present, correction could not have been ordered in summary proceedings on a miscellaneous application and that too on the basis of one sided report of Revenue field staff regarding- which no right of rebuttal was afforded to the adversaries the persons against whom the report was made

Suit under S.53 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, in the form of declaration had to be usual suit, the one under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

­Decision on such suit could only be given after recording of evidence and affording the parties full opportunity of evidence for substantiating their respective stance

Such opportunity of recording of evidence could not be afforded to the parties on application for correction of Revenue Record under S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, as the proceedings were summary in nature

Board of Revenue acted within the compass of its jurisdiction fixed by law and did not commit any illegality amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

­Disputed entry of Khasra Gardawari incorporated in Jamabandi could only be corrected through a decree of Court and not by an order of Collector after lapse of more than two decades

Order passed by Board of Revenue was just and fair and the same was not declared as void

Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs 1992 SCMR 2334 and Ahmad Din v. Akbar Ali 1992 CLC 608 ref.

Properties having source of irrigation through a persian-wheel or tube-well would be described as "chahi" and "nal chahi" respectively

Properties having source of irrigation through Government canal would be described as "Nehri".

Predecessor of respondents had mortgaged the house in question with House Building Finance Corporation vide assignment and partnership deed and obtained financial facility

Mortgagor having failed to repay the amount of finance facility according to stipulated terms, Corporation in order to recover said amount filed petition under S.30(1-A) of House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 for grant of decree order for delivery of vacant possession of the mortgaged house which' petition was accepted

During pendency of said petition appellant purchased house in question

On filing execution petition by the Corporation, Executing Court directed for auction of the house in question

Appellant who claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the house in question filed objection petition contending that she had purchased the house after satisfying herself regarding ownership of predecessor of the respondents in Revenue Record and that since effect of mortgage deed was not given in the Revenue Record, she could not have knowledge of mortgage of the house

Purchaser of the house claimed that she being bona fide purchaser of house, her right should be protected under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Contentions of purchaser were repelled

if entries with regard to mortgage of house in favour of Corporation were not made in the Revenue Record, Corporation could not be blamed because; firstly mortgage of house was through a registered deed which itself was a notice to public in general; secondly under Art. 7.18 of Chap. 7 of Land Records Manual all kinds of mortgagees were required to be entered in Mutation Register and under Art. 7.32 of said Manual, Registrar and Sub Registrar were under obligation to send to Tehsildar particulars of all registered deeds which purported to transfer of agricultural land every month

Since house in question was mortgaged by way of registered assignment and partnership deed, it was duty of the Sub-Registrar to have sent a copy of said deed in accordance with procedure prescribed under Art.7.32 of Land Records Manual

Purchaser did not file any application in writing before Sub-Registrar in order to find out as to whether house in question which she wanted to purchase was free from encumbrance or not

Purchaser, in circumstance, could not claim to be bona fide purchaser of house in question

Objection petition filed by the purchaser otherwise being time-barred was rightly dismissed

In absence of any illegality or any misreading/ non-reading of evidence by Court below warranting interference in appeal by High Court, appeal was dismissed.

Petitioners, who were candidates for the posts of Patwaris their grievance was that, the Authorities, instead of selecting Patwaris from the candidates of the Tehsil in which they were to be appointed, selected the candidates residents of other Tehsil

Validity

Instructions contained in Chap. 3, Part 4, Para. 3.12 of Land Record Manual were still existing and were being followed continuously over decades

Object of selecting person from the same Tehsil was that it was the village official who being at the lowest rung of the Revenue hierarchy of Province, was responsible for collecting as well as providing the requisite information for maintaining the Revenue Records, some of which were prepared on periodical basis and some like Khasra Girdawaris were to be prepared crops-wise and thereafter the daily transactions were to be recorded in Roznamcha Waqiati

Such a person had to be from the vicinity in respect whereof the Revenue Records and other documents were to be prepared

High Court observed that such long standing instructions could not be ignored

Rules were there to prescribe the qualifications for appointment to the posts of Patwaris and the Rules were to be strictly followed in the matter of appointment of Patwaris

High Court directed the Authorities to fill the vacancies from the petitioners on the basis of their seniority position or as per their position in the list of Patwar pass persons being maintained by the Sub-Division

High Court further directed the Authorities that in future also the vacancies should only be filled from the bona fide residents of the Tehsil under the provisions of para. 3.12 of Land Record Manual.

Plaintiff had claimed title in respect of suit property contending that mutation of gift attested in favour of defendant in respect of suit property was based on fraud

Plaintiff had contended that he did not make gift of suit land in favour of defendant, possession of suit land was not transferred to defendant and that he did not appear before Competent Authority and did not make any statement that he had made disputed gift

None of the witnesses produced by defendant had deposed about factum of gift other than mutation

Facts established from Patwari Halqa were that the mutation in question was neither entered nor attested in Revenue Estate

Lambardar of village who was alive was not associated and none of the persons present at the time of attestation of mutation was examined despite both members of Union Council were alive

Mutation in question, in circumstances, was attested clearly in contravention of provisions contained in S.42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Merely because thumb-impression of maker of alleged gift-deed in favour of defendant appeared on the mutation sheet, was not sufficient to hold that gift was made by him

Even otherwise para. 4 of Chap. 7 of Land Record Manual, had prohibited taking thumb-impression of parties on a mutation sheet

Courts below in circumstances, were not justified to dismiss the suit

Concurrent judgments and decrees of two Courts below were set aside and suit filed by plaintiff was decreed by High Court.

Mutation proceedings were summary in nature and purpose of mutation was to complete the Revenue Record for the collection of Government dues, but the same was not a title deed

Mutation was not a title deed

Order of mutation was not a final order, but appeal against order of mutation lay to A.C./Collector under S.161, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and was also open to review under 5.163 of said Act

Mutation once entered, was to be decided by Revenue Officer

Rejection of the mutation on the basis that the order on which it was entered was old, was not valid

Revenue Staff was bound to enter and sanction the mutation on the basis of order passed by the, Civil Courts/Revenue Courts/Officers.

Where both the parties failed to indicate that any custom excluding the females was consistently followed in the Mauza (village), mere entry in Wajibul Arz, the genuineness of which was not above board and which was unsupported by any cogent and consistent evidence of custom, was not entitled to any credence.

Where any entry has been incorporated in Jamabandi, under the provisions of para. 7.30 of Chap. VII of Land Records Manual, the mutation should not be entered in or sanctioned for the purpose of correcting it, except to correct a clerical error (where it cannot be done by Fard Badar) or in consequence of a patent fact

Party aggrieved by wrong entry must seek remedy by civil suit

Patent fact

Connotation.

Effect.

Petitioner. passed examination for Patwaris and in merit list his name was mentioned prior to respondents, but despite that respondents were appointed under the direction of Revenue Minister while the petitioner was ignored

Appointments as per provisions of Ss.2(d)(g) (i) (j) BSc 4 of Civil Servants Act, 1974, were to be made in the prescribed manner by the Governor or by person authorised by him in this behalf and Minister had no authority to give direction to Competent Authority to make appointment

Appointment order passed on the direction of Revenue Minister was in violation of para.3.11(3) of Land Record Manual and was repugnant to Arts. 4 & 18, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), and such illegal order could not be perpetuated.

Appointment of Patwaris by Recruitment Advisory Committee constituted for the concerned District comprised of 9 Members of Punjab Provincial Assembly, 4 Members of National Assembly and one Member of Senate

Eight posts of Patwaris having fallen vacant, they were divided among Members of. Provincial Assembly to be filled in by them to whose constituency such posts related

Deputy Commissioner's proposal that appointments should be made on merits after following prescribed procedure was turned down

Appointments were, thus, made without following any procedure and. without considering comparative merits of candidates under orders dictated by Members concerned

Held, in matters of appointment to public service, candidates have right to insist that selection be carried strictly on merits, where any prejudice was caused, to such candidates on account of failure to follow prescribed procedure, or where impugned appointments were otherwise mala fide or outcome of extraneous considerations, Constitutional petition would be competent against such appointments

Prescribed procedure having not been followed and merits of candidates having been ignored in making appointments of Patwaris, appointments in question were struck down as being violative of law

Collector of the District was directed to make fresh appointments strictly in accordance with law.

"Roznamcha. Waqiati" was prescribed to be a public document maintained by Patwari in the discharge of his official duties as envisaged by Art.85, Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984

Being such a public document, copy of "Roznamcha Waqiati" per se was admissible

Finding of Courts below that copy of same was not formally proved by examining Patwari was patently erroneous

Evidentiary value of "Roznamcha Waqiati", entry whereof dated 2-11-1963 was much earlier than plaintiff's suit; against vendor resulting in consent decree had been instituted, showing that same vendor had already sold away land in question to defendant could not be overlooked

Entry in "Roznamcha Waqiati" being of much earlier origin, when dispute between parties had not arisen, same would be taken to be an unassailable piece of documentary evidence lending substantial support to defendant's claim of document's claim . of being a bona fide earlier purchaser

Entry in "Roznamcha Waqiati" by virtue of the earlier date would by itself suffice to defeat plaintiffs claim of having purchased land by the decree dated 20-1-1964, which date was much later in point of time

Decree in plaintiff's favour granted by Courts below was set aside in circumstances.

Term "Qabiz" denoting assertion of adverse possession, in terms of para 7:41(4), Land Records Manual, could not be entered into record of rights, without a mutation attested for such purpose by the Revenue Officer

No such mutation being on record, entry of Qabiz into the record of right was unauthorized and carried little evidentiary value.

Mistake of clerical nature could be corrected at any time for such mistake could not confer any right acquire any sanctity by repeated repetition in the Record of Rights

Such fact having been duly proved before Collector, who after hearing parties ordered correction of Record of Rights which was in accordance with law and para. 7.30 of Land Records Manual.

Board of Revenue has never prescribed that signatures or thumb-impressions of parties should be obtained on the mutation

Para 4.7, Land Records Manual and Director, Land Record's Circular Letter No.101, dated 17-4-1968, strictly prohibit signatures/thumb-impression of parties on mutations.

Held, Revenue Authority, was not debarred from initiating proceedings for correction of Knasra Girdawari and it was matter of propriety with Revenue Authority to consider whether during pendency of" pre-emption suit it should interfere with Khasra Girdawari

When matter being that of propriety alone no writ could be issued.

Where any change in possession was denoted by absence of diagonal in Khasra Girdawari, same being disputed, Fard Mashkooki, held, would be ,prepared and verified by Girdawar for purposes of getting same cleared through mutation

Persons not disputing change of possession would be deemed to have acquiesced in such change

Plea of alteration in such entry being unauthorized or illegal, could not be entertained after years of such change appearing in all succeeding Jamabandis.

Order remanding case for fresh decision, held, not amenable to interference in constitutional petition.