' On 27-10-1986 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that he was owner of the land mentioned in para.1 of the plaint located in village Seelwan Tehsil and District Mianwali. As per entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68, this land was acquired by the respondents for Chashma Barrage. He was paid the compensation. In lieu of the said land he was allotted land measuring 120 Kanals in Lot No,91 in another Revenue estate as described in para.2 of the plaint. The grievance made out was that in the allotment and entitlement certificates the parentage of the petitioner was recorded Bakhara Khan instead of Lekar Khan, whereas he is not the son of Bakhara Khan. The petitioner filed an application for correction of the said name of his father which was rejected by respondent No,1 on 5-10-1986. He accordingly sought a declaration that he is son of Lekar Khan and he was owner of the said land in village Seelwan which was acquired for Chashma Barrage and in lieu was allotted said Lot No,91 and that order dated 5- 10-1186 is illegal and void. Now in their written statement respondents admitted that the petitioner is owner of land mentioned in para.1 which was acquired. It was admitted that alternate allotment was made as alleged. It was also admitted that the petitioner had been paying instalments for the said allotted land. However, they insisted that the name of father as recorded in entitlement certificate and allotment order is Bakhara Khan. Inter alia, following issues were framed:-- (6). Whether plaintiff is owner of suit-land? OPD (6-A). Whether father's name of Niaz Muhammad appellant is Lekar Khan and not Bakhara and the land falling in Khata No,842 Mauza Seelwan as described in the head note of the plaint was owned by him?
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-1992. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, on 31-1-1996..
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after holding that the petitioner is the man who is son of Lekar Khan, whose land was acquired, dismissal of the suit and appeal is without jurisdiction. Learned Assistant Advocate General has tried to argue that since the petitioner opted to remain quiet for number of years despite the said incorrect entry of his father name in the said two documents, he is not entitled to the relief.
3. I have examined the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel and learned Law Officer. I have also examined the record brought by the said Patwari, with reference to the documents Marks A and B. I have already referred to the pleadings of the parties in some detail above. Now I have no manner of doubt in my mind that it stands admitted without any demur that it is the petitioner who owned the land in village Seelwan; that this was the land which was acquired by the respondents and that Lot No,91 was allotted in lieu of the said land. Both the learned Courts below after examining the identity card and other documents have held as a fact that the petitioner is the said person. However, still they have proceeded to dismiss the suit and appeal. Now reasoning recorded is that in the document mark A which is copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 and mark B which is copy of Register RL-II Khata No,27 of village Seelwan, there appears to be overwriting on the word "Lekar Khan". I have examined the original records and it does appear that "(sic)" in the word Lekar Khan appears to be rather thick than the remaining words but nothing turns on this in view of the established and otherwise admitted position on record that it is the petitioner whose land was acquired, who was allotted Lot No,91 and who has been paying the instalments for the same. Learned Courts below have refused to grant the said relief to the petitioner without rhyme or reason. I called upon the said Patwari to state after consulting his original record as to whether any other person has ever claimed to be the said original owner or to be the allottee of the alternate land. The answer is in the negative. So for as the record of the case is concerned there is not even a plea much less evidence that some other person is claiming to be owner of the land or allottee of the alternate land. I, therefore, do agree with the learned counsel that the dismissal of the suit and appeal by both the learned Courts below is wholly without jurisdiction. This civil revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decrees of the both learned Courts below are set aside. The suit filed by the petitioner is decreed as prayed for. No order as to costs.
Revision .