' This is an application jointly filed by Mst. Aisha, Mst. Zubaida and Mst. Bazgha, presented before the Board on 4-4-2002 for the correction of mistake under section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 said to have been appearing in the order passed on 30-9-1998 by the then Member (RS&EP) in two applications for Review No,55 of 1997 filed by the following persons:-- Review No. Applicants Respondents 55 of 1997 1. Molvi Abdul Sattar (Late) through his son Molvi Abdul Rauf.
2. Molvi Abdul Jabbar.
3. Mst. Aisha
4. Mst. Zubaida
5. Mst. Razia1. Abdul Rasheed.
S. Review of 1997 1. Abdul Rasheed.
1. Molvi Abdul Sattar
2. Molvi Abdul Jabbar.
3. Mst. Aisha
4. Mst. Zubaida
5. Mst. Razia
2. The contents of the application are that in the order, dated 30-9-1998 passed by the then Member (RS&EP), S.Nos.89/1 (2-14 acres), 89/2 (1-34 acres) and 89/7 (4-08 acres) total area 8-16 acres of Deh Bhanjro Taluka Ghotki surrendered by the tube-well owners were allowed to late Molvi Abdul Sattar and others on permanent tenure on the basis of cultivation and possession. It is urged that the above through clerical error/mistake, the words 'and others/ were not incorporated/typed in the concluding para of the impugned order dated 30-9-1998 therefore, the mistake may be corrected under section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 by adding the words "and others" in para. 9 (concluding para) of order, dated 30-9-1998 which is reproduced as under:-- "(9) Accordingly the review petition of petitioner Molvi Abdul Sattar is allowed to extent of 8-16 acres bearing B.Nos.89/1 (2-14), 89/2 (1-34), 89/7 (4-08) acres, and the review petition of Abdul Rasheed and others is allowed to the extent of 64-23 acres subject to the observations contained here before. The Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur should take action accordingly."
3. The facts of the case in brief are that Abdul Rasheed and others were initially leased out the land admeasuring 169-19 acres in Deh Bhanjro from the year 1958-59 under Tube-well Scheme. The lease was renewed from time to time till the Government framed the policy for disposal of such land on permanent tenure. In this regard a meeting was also held by the Defunct Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore on 9-3-1965 to decide, and to frame the policy of such grantees which was followed by another meeting held by the Land Utilization Committee on 17-6-1970.
Pursuant to the decisions of the committee, the case of Abdul Rasheed and others was decided in their favour for an area of 91-20 acres out of the total area of 169-19 acres. The Board of Revenue in Land Utilization Department, however, did not take decision for grant of the remaining area of 77-39 acres. Abdul Rasheed filed. Constitutional petition before the Honourable High Court, Karachi where he could not succeed. He along with others challenged the judgment of Honourable High Court dated 13-12-1990 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the pendency of litigation before the Honourable Supreme Court, Abdul Rasheed continued to pursuade the matter before the Board of Revenue, Land Utilization Department and got the matter decided in his favour as a result of which in his favour as a result of which, the Deputy Secretary (L.U.) Board of Revenue, Sindh vide Letter No,LU.JB/7-3-91/G-II, dated 5-6-1991 directed the then Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage Sukkur to recover the price of the land from Abdul Rasheed and others along with interest and penal interest, provided the appeal is withdrawn from the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Abdul Rasheed after withdrawal of the petition from the Honourable Supreme Court approached the Board of Revenue for implementation of the orders of Land Utilization Department contained in letter dated 5-6-1991. At this stage the case was transferred from the Administrative side of Land Utilization Department to the Judicial side of learned Member (Land Utilization). Who vide his order 27-5-1997, held that the request of Abdul Rasheed and others on Tube-well Scheme merits no consideration and the land be distributed amongst the sitting tenant including Abdul Rasheed, on harp conditions as per Land Grant Policy.
4. Against the above order, dated 27-9-1997 of the learned Member (L.U.) two applications for review were filed by the parties mentioned in para. 1 ante.
5. The Application for Review No,55 of 1997 filed by Molvi Abdul Sattar (late) through his son Molvi Abdul Rauf, Molvi Abdul Jabbar, Mst. Aisha, Mst. Zubea and Mst. Razia was with the prayer to modify the observations, clearly allowing the applicant to apply along with their male family members for the grant of the land on the following grounds:--
(i) That, there is nowhere stated in the impugned order, that the present applicants have any right to contest the disposal of the suit-land.
(ii) That the judgment passed is a tight one in which the present applicants see no clear directions to contest in the Katchary.
(iii) That it shall be just if the clear observations for the disposal of the land are given under the land grant policy, without any observation about the persons to take part in the allotment.
6. Both the above applications for review were decided vide consolidated order dated 30-9-19.98.
The applicants after a lapse of 3 years, six months and three days, have filed the present application for correction of order without assigning any reason for such an inordinate delay. It is true that an application under section 166 of the Sirdh Land Revenue Act, 1967 can be filed at any stage but if the order has been acted upon and valuable rights have been accrued, it will certainly be hit by the principle of locus poenitentiae (power of receding can be exercised till a decisive step is taken).
7. Heard the parties at length.
8. The applicant have invoked the provisions of section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 which contemplates that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decree or order made by any Revenue Officer, or errors therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by such officer.
9. I have gone through the impugned order very minutely and carefully. For the fair appraisal of the case, the paras. Relating to the case of Molvi Abdul Sattar and others in the impugned order, are reproduced hereunder:- "(5) So far the case of Molvi Abdul Sattar and others is concerned he has interest only to the extent of 8-16 acres from B.Nos.89/1 (4-00), 89/2 (1-34) and 89/7 (4-08) as this land is reportedly in his possession. This land in fact includes the land of Abdul Rasheed admeasuring 77-39 acres out of this an area of 5-00 acres has already been disposed of on permanent basis leaving balance of 72-39 acres. The petitioner Abdul Rasheed in order to settle the matter once for all voluntarily surrenders an area of 8-16 acres in favour of petitioner Molvi Abdul Sattar.
(8) In view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that there was no need at all for passing the impugned order as the case related to the implementation of the order of Land Utilization Department dated 5-6-1991. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order with the directions that the orders already passed in the matter should be implemented in the letter and spirit without further loss of time as the petitioner Abdul Rasheed and his co-sharers mentioned a para.3 of the impugned order viz. Mukhtiar Ahmed, (2) Muhammad Aslam, (3) Abdul Haque, (4) Ashiq Ali, (5) Abdul Wahab, (6) Muhammad Sharif have already sustained sufficient loss on account of delay in finalization of the matter so far the review petition of Molvi Abdul Sattar is concerned he only claims 8-16 acres on the basis of possession for which the petitioner Abdul Rasheed voluntarily surrenders in his favour.
(9) Accordingly the review petition of petitioner Movli Abdul Sattar is allowed to the extent of 8-16 acres bearing B.Nos.89/1 (4-00), 89/2 (1-34), 89/7 (4-08) acres and the review petition of Abdul Rasheed and others is allowed to the extent of 64-23 acres subject to the observations contained here before. The Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage, Sukkur should take action accordingly."
10. The determining factor in the present case is whether non-mention of the names of three applicants (present ladies) in the last para. No,9 of the impugned order is a clerical mistake or error from accidental slip or omission which can be rectified under section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967?
11. A clerical mistake/error as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) is an error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence, especially in writing or copying something on the record and not from judicial reasoning. Or determination. Among the boundless examples of clerical errors are omitting an appendix from a document, typing an incorrect number, mistranscribing a word, and failing to lodg a call. A clerical error has been defined in Wharton's Law C Lexicon as 'an error in document which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip or mistake of the party preparing or copying. It. One might usefully add the word 'omission'; to the phrase 'slip or mistake'.
We are familiar with the phrase 'accidental slip or omission' what it pre-supposed is want of intention. As held in PLD 983 SC (AJ&K) 197 clerical mistake cannot be stretched to mean inclusion of new name instead of old one.
12. Admittedly, as already mentioned in para. 5 (ibid), the prayer of the applicants in their Application for Review No,55 of 1997 was to modify the order, dated 27-5-1997 of the learned Member (L.U.) to the extent that while disposing of the disputed land in open Katchary, they should also be allowed to apply along with their male family members for the grant of the land (77-39). It is quite obvious that the learned Member (RS&EP) did not allow the prayer of the applicant, which means their application for review was rejected. Instead of allowing the applicants including the present ladies (applicants) to apply and contest for the entire land, the learned Member (L.U.) distributed the land amongst the parties in the following manner:-- S. No. Name Area allowed 1 Molvi Abdul Sattar.
Abdul Rasheed and others8-16 acres 64-23 acres Total 72-39 acres.
13. It would be seen that the learned Member (RS&EP) intentionally ignored the names of lady applicants and allowed 8-16 acres of land to Molvi Abdul Sattar on the basis of possession. This fact that Molvi Abdul Sattar was in possession of 8-16 acres, is also mentioned in para.6 of order, dated 27-5-1997 of the learned Member (L.U.). There is nothing on the record to suggest that the area of 8-16 acres allowed to Molvi Abdul Sattar was jointly possessed by Molvi Abdul Sattar and the present three ladies (applicants). Therefore, the contention of the lady applicants that non- inclusion of their names in the impugned order was a clerical error/mistake is quite incorrect. The learned Member (RS&EP), rightly or wrongly, had allowed 8-16 acres bearing Block Nos. 89/1 (2-14 acres), 89/2 (1-34 acres) and 89/7 (4-08 acres) to Molvi Abdul Sattar only and not to anyone else including the lady applicants.
14. There is no substance in the present applications to , add the names of the lady applicants in the impugned order by invoking the provisions of section 166 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967.
The present application being devoid of force is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
15. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide his Letter No,EDO/HVC/1092 of 2002, dated 11-5-2002 addressed to the Member (RS&EP) Board of Revenue, Sindh has stated that on the basis of order, dated 30-9-1998, the Mukhtiarkar (Estate) Ghotki has issued T.O. (Tear Off) Form in favour of Molvi Abdul Sattar through his legal heirs and on the basis of such T.O. Form, Entries Nos.251 and 252 have been kept in V.F.VII of Deh Bhamjro, Taluka Ghotki. The applieants have filed appeal before him (the Executive District Officer Revenue, Ghotki) to cancel the T.O. Form and Entries Nos.251 and 252. The learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Ghotki has requested that necessary instructions may be issued whether T.O. Form issued by the Mukhtiarkar (Estate) Ghotki in favour of Molvi Abdul Sattar is correct or the names of appellants (before Executive District Officer (Revenue), Ghotki) may also be entered in the Revenue Record as per their following share which they are holding in their other Qubuli/Naqubali lands:--- S. No. Name of Co-sharers Share
1. Molvi Abdul Sattar son of Mehmood Sahib 0-34 Paisa
2. Molvi Abdul Jabbar son of Mehmood Sahib0-34 Paisa
3. Mst. Aisha daughter of Abdul Rehman 0-11 Paisa
4. Mst. Zubeda daughter of Abdul Rehman 0-11 Paisa
5. Mst. Bazgha daughter of Abdul Rehman 0-11 Paisa
16. In this context it is to make abundant clear that the inclusion of the names of lady applicants in the T.O. Form and in the record of rights, is out of question as the matter already stands finally decided by the learned Member (RS&EP) vide the impugned order. As regards the cancellation of T.O. Form and Entries Nos. 251, 252, they can only be cancelled by the appellate authority or revisional authority. If it is proved that the full price of the land has not been paid and that the conditions of the allotment/grant as laid down in the statement of conditions notified by the Government are not fulfilled, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) being the appellate authority may hear the appeal and decide it as per law subject to limitation. So far as the entries in the V.F.VII are concerned, the same, as laid down in section 42(13) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, are attested by the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue)/the Assistant Mukhtiarkar. For the cancellation of such mutation order the appeal, as envisaged in section 161(a) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, lies before the Assistant District Officer of first grade. Moreover, section 161 (1) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, clearly allows only one appeal from one original or appellate order. If there are two mutation orders one single appeal against two separate mutations order would not be competent.
17. The learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) being the appellate/revisional authority, is required to decide the appeal/revision filed before him (if any) and pass appropriate orders under the law. A Revenue Officer hearing an appeal or revision is not competent to make any reference or write any letter to the Board of Revenue seeking instructions/guidance in a judicial matter. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) Ghotki is directed to decide the appeal/revision (as the case may be) pending before him strictly in accordance with the law and keeping in view the orders of the Board of Revenue made in the instant case.
Review declined.