' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Brief facts giving rise to this Civil Revision may be given first. Agricultural land bearing Khewat Nos. 308 and 279, Khasras Nos.228 and 220 measuring 50 Kanals located in revenue estate of Waando Gharbi, Tehsil Kot Uddu, District Muzaffargarh was owned by Bashir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 9, herein. On 5-7-1997 Muhammad Hassan, petitioner No,1 herein, and Muhammad Ali Shah, predecessor-ininterest of Petitioners Nos.2-A to 2-J herein, filed a suit against Bashir Ahmad, original owner, for specific performance of a contract with the pleas that he had entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit-land with him in the year 1973; and paid him total sale price of Rs,10,000; that Bashir Ahmad had been avoiding execution of sale-deed on one pretext or the other since 1973 and that ultimately he refused to honour his commitment one month before 5-7-1997.
2. On contest being put, the original owner Bashir Ahmad, dismissed the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs by filing a written statement to the effect that he never entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs; that they got entered their names in register Khasra Girdawari in connivance with the Revenue Field Staff against the position existing on the ground and that as a matter of fact the land was in his constructive possession as owner through Amir Bakhsh, tenant at will.
3. The learned Civil put the parties at trial on the following issues:-
(i) Whether the description of suit-land is incorrect, if so, its effect? OPD
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(iv) Whether the defendant is entitled to recovery special costs? OPD
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree in his favour for the reason mentioned in the plaint? OPD
(vi) Relief.
4. The parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claim.
On conclusion of trial, the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated -11-2005. On an appeal by the petitioners/ plaintiffs, Ch. Abdul Razzaq, learned Additional District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court on issues Nos.3, 4 and 6 and remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction to rewrite the judgment. Under the remand order, the learned Trial Civil Judge reexamined the entire evidence and held issues Nos.4 and 6 against the plaintiffs. Issues Nos.2 and 3 were found in favour of the defendants. However, issues No,1 and 5 were answered against the defendants. Resultantly, the suit of the petitioners/ plaintiffs was again dismissed vide judgment decree dated 20-5-2008. The petitioners herein filed an appeal against dismissal of their suit, which also met the same fate on 24-10-2008.
4. The petitioners have called in question legality, validity and correctness of concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court on the ground that they misread the evidence and failed to appreciate the law governing the subject of agreement to sell immoveable property.
5. Admittedly, the land was owned by Bashir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein. He was sued by the plaintiffs during his life time. He himself dismissed and denied the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement to the effect that he never entered into an agreement to sell the suit property with the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs vehemently argued that the entries of revenue record favourable to the claim of petitioners/plaintiffs either escaped notice of the learned Court below or the same had not been examined. In order to arrive at the truth I have carefully examined the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year, 1993-94 touching the disputed property, which was adduced in evidence as Exh.P.1. It is manifest from a bare perusal of Exh.P.1 that a part of the suit property was in occupation of Bashir Ahmad, the original owner, while a few Khasra numbers of the disputed property were in possession of Muhammad Hassan, plaintiff, as tenant at will. The name of Muhammad Ali Shah, predecessor in interest of petitioners Nos.2-A to 2-J does not figure any where in any of the columns of Jamabandi. Under section 52 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 entries in record of rights has got presumption of truth. The only entry in favour of one of the plaintiffs in the P.1 is as tenant at will. This is an established principle of law subject to no exception that once a tenant always a tenant. Article 115 of the QanunI-Shahadat Order 1984 narrates this principle in the following words:- - "115. Estoppel of tenant and license of person in possession---No tenant of immoveable property or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immoveable property, and no person who came upon any immoveable property by the license of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given."
'When confronted with the entries of Jamabandi and the provisions of Article 115 of the Qanun-i- Shahadat Order, learned counsel for petitioners attempted to argue that in the first instance, the plaintiffs occupied the suit-land as tenants at will, but later on their status was changed when they made an agreement to sell with the original owner Bashir Ahmad. The contention is mis ,conceived for two reasons. Firstly, a tenant cannot set up hostile title against his landlord without first surrendering and then regaining possession of the subject-matter in his own rights hostile to the landlord. According to the revenue papers relied upon by the petitioner they gained possession of the suit property as tenant at B will under the original owner Bashir Ahmad, therefore, they are estopped once for all to set up hostile title against him without first surrendering possessing of the subject matter and then regaining possession thereof under the agreement to sell, if any. The claim of the petitioners being violative of Article 115 of Qanun-iShahadat Order is not acceptable.
6. The learned counsel for petitioners also argued that the possession of plaintiffs under the agreement to sell was duly incorporated in register Khasra Girdawari and that Wahid Bakhsh, Consolidation Patwari also entered the witness-box at trial of the suit and made a statement on oath that Bashir Ahmad appeared before him and made a statement that he had sold the suit- land in favour of the plaintiffs. For multiple reasons I do not feel inclined to attach any importance to the contention. Firstly, the Patwari made a meaningless and illegal entry in Khasra Girdawari, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- {{URDU TEXT}} 'I have minutely gone through the Land Revenue Act, Land Records Manual, Settlement Manual and all other Land Laws and could not find any provisions of law, which may empower the Patwari to change status of the tenant at will to the above effect. It is painful to note that the Patwari exercised jurisdiction which even does not vest in the District Collector or Board of Revenue. The above said meaningless and dishonest entry being in conflict with entries of cultivation Column No,4 of register Haqdaran Zamin Exh.P-1 and being violative of Article 115 of Qanun-iShahadat Order and all Land Laws governing the subject, must be ignored being nullity in the eye of law. Secondly, it is an absolute rule of.Law that an agreement to sell does not create even a slightest right or interest in the property and it create a right to sue only. In the case in hand, the Revenue Field Staff joined hands with the plaintiffs and incorporated their names in revenue record illegally and dishonestly with a motive to equip them with some interest in the suit property. Thirdly, in Jamabandi for the year 1993-94, Exh.P-1 Muhammad Hassan, plaintiff, was recorded as tenant at will over a part of the suit property. The revenue Patwari altered his status from tenant at will to that of an occupant under an agreement to sell with effect from 1990 onward. Had Muhammad Hassan Shah, plaintiff, been recorded as occupant under an agreement to sell for the above said period, he would not have been recorded as tenant at will in cultivation Column No,4 of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94. The entry of register Haqdaran Zamin , P.-1 has conclusively established that the Revenue Patwari tampered with register Khasra Girdawari and made antedated entries therein in favour of Muhammad Hassan, plaintiff. Needless to add that no presumption of truth is attached to the entries of Khasra Girdawar. As the entry of Khasra Girdawari is not in line with that of register Haqdaran Zamin, to C which presumption of truth is attached, I straightaway discard the Khasra Girdawari. The Patwari not only tampered with the record and made dishonest entry therein but also dared to appear before the Trial Court and made a statement on oath that the original owner Bashir Ahmad had made a statement before him in favour of the plaintiffs. Had the owner appeared before him to certify the factum of sale of the suit property, the Patwari would have immediately incorporated the information in the Daily Diary followed by an entry in the Mutation Register. There is no answer to this question as to why the Patwari committed the said information about landed property to his memory instead of incorporating the same in the Revenue Record.
7. The learned Trial Court appointed Local Commission for determination of the position at the spot.
The Local Commission inspected the spot, examined both the sides and submitted his report in favour of the respondents/defendants.
8. For what has been stated above, I feel no difficulty in concluding that the learned Courts below rightly non-suited the petitioners/plaintiffs. The concurrent findings of the" learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court being based on legal evidence and completely in line with the law governing the subject, are not open to any exception. I, therefore, dismiss this Revenue Petition in limine.
9. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners/plaintiffs dragged the owners of land in frivolous litigation for years. This Court can very well imagine the agony faced by the owners during trial of the controversy spreading over years. It stands established on record that the plaintiffs/ tenant are/ were not possessed with any cause of action or locus standi respecting the suit-land and they started frivolous and E vexatious litigation obviously with ulterior motive. I, therefore, impose corrpensatory/ penal cost of Rs,25,000 (Twenty five thousand) on the petitioners/ plaintiffs, which on its realization shall be paid to the E respondents/defendants.
10. The Revenue Officials played havoc with the Revenue Administration. They made illegal entries in the revenue record and provided a basis for frivolous and baseless litigation. The entries of Khasra Girdawari were tampered with in such a way that the same did not remain in conformity with the entries of Jamabandi. The District Officer (Revenue)/ District Collector, Muzaffargarh is, therefore, directed to get a case registered against all the Revenue Officials/Officers at fault with the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh besides taking an appropriate and effective action on administrative side.
11. A copy of this judgment may also be sent to District Judge, Muzaffargarh with a direction to recover the compensatory/penal cost from the petitioners/ plaintiffs by adopting all legal means including the coercive measures, if required, and to ensure its payment to the respondents/ defendants within a period of three months from receipt of order.