1. ' KHALIL AHMAD, J.--- Respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land described in the head-note of the plaint along with defendants Nos.11 to 13 and that defendants Nos.1 to 10 have got no right and that Mutation of inheritance No,1850 in the name of Kura son of Ghulama of Mauza Dagar Rehtas was illegal, void and ineffective. The case of respondents was that Kura was owner of land measuring 312 Kanals, 14 Marlas in Village Dagar Rehtas and his share in "Shamlat Deh" was 163 Kanals, 17 Marlas. The said Kura sold his total land vide Mutation No,1110 dated 12-5-1952 to Allah Bakhsh. Muhammad Hayat respondent and his brother Fida Hussain obtained this land vide Mutation No,1122, dated 11-12-1952. The Village Dagar Rehtas was divided into four revenue estates i,e, Dagar Rehtas Gharbi, Dagar Rehtas Sharqi, Chak No,184/TDA and Chak No,33/TDA. 132 Kanals of total land fell in village Dagar Rehtas and Mutation No,1122 was incorporated in its Revenue Record Village 110 Kanals, 5 Marlas of land which fell in Dagar Rehtas Sharqi was not acted upon and the same was treated as ownership of Kura and mutation of inheritance No,1850, dated 18-5-1968 was sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Hayat and others. That Thal Development Authority neglected Mutation Nos.1110 and 1122 and treated this property as property of Kura and that mutation of inheritance Nos.101 and 103 were illegal void and ineffective qua their rights.
2. 'The suit was contested and on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed issues and after recording of evidence decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25-1-1994. The petitioner filed an appeal. The learned District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 21-2-2000 partly accepted the appeal and amended the judgment and decree holding that Muhammad Hayat and Fida Hussain were not entitled to "Shamlat Deh" left by Kura and that legal heirs of Kura are owners of Shamlat Deh for the remaining land measuring 163 Kanals, 17 Marlas. The learned District Judge held that the decree was rightly passed. Hence this petition.
3. 'C Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgments and decrees are based on misreading and non-reading of record and are against facts and law and that mutation does not create any right.World It is an admitted fact that his land measuring 312 Kanals to Allah Bakhsh and did not sell his share of "Shamlat Deh" which is evident from Exh.P.19. Allah Bakhsh sold the land to Muhammad Hayat and his brother Fida Hussain vide Mutation No,1122 and in that Shamlat Deh was not included. Exh. P.5 and Exh.P.9 clearly indicate that only the ,land was sold and the original owner Kura had not sold his "Shamlat Deh" measuring 163 Kanals to Allah Bakhsh. Similarly Allah Bakhsh had not sold Shamlat Deh to Muhammad Hayat and Fida Hussain and as such the legal heirs of Kura are owners of "Shamlat Deh" measuring 163 Kanals, 17 Marlas left by Kura deceased.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence available on record warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.