Muhammad Hanif along-with his two brothers has filed this revision petition against Saqab Ali etc. respondents under Section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 feeling aggrieved by order dated 30.7.2002 passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura whereby the appeal of present respondents against order dated 14.3.2002 of District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura was accepted by him and set aside the impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case have already been narrated in the impugned order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura dated 30.7.2002 in detail and no need to repeat the same again.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) are against law and facts and that the. District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura carried out the correction in khasra girdawari after getting report from the field staff and passed correct orders which were reversed by EDO (Revenue) vide his impugned order dated 30.7.2002. It was further contended that the petitioners had been allotted the land in dispute and they are in possession of land according to their entitlement and that the respondents got the entry of cultivation in their names to deprive the Petitioner No, 1 from his 2 kanals of land whereas the petitioners have not sold to any land to respondents. It was further contended that the Petitioner No, 1 had got stay order from the Civil Court for no entry could be changed and neither the possession could be interfered with. It was further contended that the revenue staff changed the khasra girdawari against the rules provided in Land Revenue Manual and Act. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) did not appreciate the law in this behalf. It was prayed on the above grounds that the revision petition may be accepted and the impugned order of EDO (Revenue) may be set aside.
4. Counsel for the respondents contended that the District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura allowed the change in khasra girdawari vide his order dated 14.3.2002 after getting the report from the field staff. According to the report of the revenue staff disputed entry of khasra girdawari of kharif 2001 of Square No, 38 Khewat No, 10/1 was illegally made in favour of Saqab Ali and Haris All sons of Niaz Ali and this entry was recommended to be changed in the name of Muhammad Hanif co-sharer. It was further contended that Saqab Ali and Haris Ali were minors. So they could not be cultivating possession and that the actual intention of respondents was to grab 2 kanals of land from the petitioners.
5. Heard. Record perused. Saqab Ali and Haris Ali sons of Niaz All are admittedly minors and khasra girdawari of kharif 2001 in Square No, 38 Khewat No, 10/1 measuring 2 kanals only in their favour appears to be arranged with the connivance of the revenue staff. No record has been produced at any level which could show the change of possession of respondents and before the entry of cultivation in favour of the respondents was carried out. The petitioners did not sell any land to the respondent, neither it has been proved that the respondents bought that particular khasra/khewat number consisting of 2 kanals of land, even after the disputed khasra girdawari of khalif 2001, the later entry of khasra girdawari is in favour of Muhammad Hanif who claims to have been in possession the disputed land even before the crucial entry of kharif 2001. Entry of khasra girdawari of kharif 2001 of square. No, 38 Khewat No, 10/1 measuring 2 kanals in the names of the respondents Saqab Ali and Hairs Ali does not fit in the circumstances of the case. The Executive District. Officer (Revenue) was unable to appreciate the facts/record.
6. In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order of. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura dated 30.7.2002 is set aside.