' Plaintiffs-respondents herein had instituted a suit for declaration with regard to the landed property situated in Mauza Morli, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot, bearing Khasra Nos.695 and 705 to the effect that entries in the Revenue Record of the property in dispute made by the Revenue functionaries in collusion with the defendants/petitioners are illegal, against facts and in effective qua their rights with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possessory rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was contested by defendant No,2 only who filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint.
2. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court led to frame various issues. After recording and appreciating the evidence, produced by both the parties, vide its judgment and decree dated 24-10-1994 dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs-respondents preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, who vide his judgment and decree dated 11-11-1996. Accepted the appeal, set aside the finding of the trial Court and decreed the suit.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to try the suit as question of correction in the Revenue Record is the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities. Further contended that the learned lower Appellate Court has misread the evidence. He relied on cases of Muhammad Din and 3 others v. Administrator-General of Auqaf, Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 1979 CLC 551; Dilmir and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others PLD 1991 Lahore 314 and Sardar Khan v. Ghulam Hussain and others 2003 YLR 1788.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners contending that the record of the land in dispute in the possession of the Revenue Patwari has been tempered with, while the record available in the record room was correct. Further contended that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction which is triable by the Civil Court.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
7. The case of the plaintiffs/ respondents is that the petitioners with the connivance of Field Staff got changed the entries in the record of land in dispute with regard to the share of the land which was in possession of the Revenue Patwari and in Khasra No,695 the ownership of the petitioners was entered as 2 Kanals. 4 Marlas instead of 6 Kanals and in Khasra No,650 his ownership was entered as 3 Kanals and 16 M.Arlas, while the plaintiffs were owners of 6 Kanals and to this effect, these entries were incorporated in the Record of Rights pertaining to the year 1984-85. In Missal Haqiyat for the year 1994 the ownership of the plaintiffs-respondents was shown as 3 Kanals, 16 Marlas and 2 Kanals. 4 Marlas while in record of rights their share was entered as 6 Marlas in each Khasra number.
8. Wherein the averments of the plaint, declaration of title to suit-land is sought as its exclusive owners with consequential relief of restraining respondents from interfering with the possession--- section 172(1, 2) (xviii) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, is not attracted and in such case jurisdiction of A Civil Court is not barred. In this context reliance has been placed to the case of Din Muhammad and 6 others v. Mehar Ali Khan and 2 others PLD, 1978 Karachi 267. The issue as to jurisdiction involving factual controversy regarding nature of suit-land can be raised and decided by the Civil Court and section 53 of the Land Revenue Act 'envisages' that if any person considers himself aggrieved by any entry in the Record of Rights or in periodical record as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right. Section 53 ibid itself creates a right in favour of an aggrieved person to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his right. The scope of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act is entirely different. It only excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court from taking in hand the function assigned to the Revenue Courts as also the questioning their methodology adopted for discharge B of such function. The function of Revenue Court is to prepare the Revenue Record in the light of the evidence with regard to one's title or interest "finality is attached to the orders of the Civil Court which shall determine civil rights of the parties. In the instant case, claim of the petitioners is that they be declared as owners in possession of the land in dispute measuring 6 Kanals each in Khatas Nos.695 and 705 respectively.
The other is that the wrong entries had been incorporated in the Revenue Record and the present petitioners contest the right of the plaintiffs/ respondents, therefore, it is an intricate question of law and para. 7.30 of the Land Record Manual provides, that where any entry had been incorporated in Jamabandi under para. 7.30 of Chapter VII of Land Record Manual the mutation should not be entered in or sanctioned for the purpose of correcting it, part] aggrieved by wrong ' entry mu', seek C remedy through civil suit.
Reliance can be placed to the case of Shereen Khanum v. Member, Board of Revenue 2001 YLR 2387.
9. The learned lower Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court on Issues Nos.3-A and 4 had assigned sufficient reasons and obierved that area of Khasra Nos.695 and 705 is 6 Kanals each: The plaintiffs/respondents through oral and documentary evidence had proved their claim. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of fact of the lower Appellate Court and this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence unless a glaring misreading and non-reading is pointed out.
10. For the foregoing reasons this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed. No order as to costs.