' YAHYA AFRIDI, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge-VI, Charsadda dated 10-11-2009, whereby the appeal of the present petitioner against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-III, Charsadda dated 29-9-2008 was dismissed.
2. Zakirullah and others, the present respondents, instituted a civil suit against the present petitioner seeking, inter alia, a declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are co- owners in possession of `Shamilaat' land measuring 6 Kanals and 16 Marlas situated in Mauza Chak Utmanzai, Tehsil and District Charsadda ("Suit Property").
3. The trial court after considering the evidence produced by the parties passed a decree in favour of the present respondents. The appeal against the said judgment and decree was also decided in favour of the present respondents. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. The present petitioner has admitted that the respondents are co-owners in the `Shamilat' land, what was disputed and denied was the possession of the present respondents over the suit property.
' The learned counsel of the petitioner pointed out that though the possession of the present respondents was recorded in the Revenue Record but the petitioner was in actual possession of the suit property. In this regard he had moved an application for change in entries of the Revenue Record to reflect his possession, which was allowed by the Revenue Officer during the proceedings of the trial and the same has not yet been challenged. He further argued that the suit of the present respondent was a counterblast to the said application for correction.
The learned counsel of the petitioner, further stated that the issue for determining the possession over the suit property, more so when the ownership was not disputed, was the exclusive domain of the revenue authorities under section 172 and not the civil court under section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 ("Act").
' The petitioner further claims that he is in unhindered continuous physical possession of the suit property and had even moved an application for constitution of a commission before the trial court to ascertain the actual possession of the parties over the suit property. The learned counsel argued that rejection of the said application by the Court below had seriously prejudiced the case of the present petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the present respondents rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner stated that they are since 1940 recorded in the Revenue Record to be in possession of the suit property. These longstanding uninterrupted, unchallenged and continuous entries in their favour give rise to presumption of truth. The petitioner was required to produce confidence- inspiring evidence, which he failed to do during the trial.
' In regard to the application for constitution of a commission, the learned counsel stated that the matter was a closed and past transaction as the application for commission was rejected by the trial court and also by the revision court vide order dated 27-5-2007. Thus this court in its revisional jurisdiction could not re-agitate the said issue.
' In regard to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer to change the entries in the Revenue Record, the learned counsel for the respondents simply stated that though the power of changing entries in the Revenue Record was vested in the Revenue Officers, in cases where these entries were long lasting entries, the same could only be changed by civil courts after giving opportunity to the other side to contest the claim.
6. The valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties duly noted. The available record of the case thoroughly considered with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties.
7. The possession of the present respondents over the suit property has been duly recorded in the Revenue Record since 1940 (Exh. P. W. 1/5 to Exh . P. W.1/18).
8. Now the burning contesting issue in the present petition is, whether the revenue authorities under section 172 or the civil courts under section 53 of the Act, would be the appropriate forum to agitate the grievance of the present respondents.
' The petitioner claims that the revenue courts had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues relating to possession, while the respondents contest the said proposition of law and claim that the civil court was the appropriate forum to resolve the same. It would be appropriate to first review the provisions of the Act vesting authority in civil courts and the Revenue Officers under the Act. The same are:-- ' Section 53. "If any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record-of-rights [or in a periodical record] as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the ' Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Act I of 1877)."
"172. (2) "Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), a civil court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely:--
(vi) the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, periodical record or register of mutations"
' The jurisdiction of the civil court as compared to the Revenue Authorities as provided in the Act have been a matter of discussion in the judgments of the august Supreme Court. In Rasta Mal Khan v. Nabi Sarwar Khan (1996 SCMR 78) the august Supreme Court held that:- "....The bar of jurisdiction of civil courts under section 172 (subsection VI) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 it may be pointed out that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court relates to correction of the entries made by the Revenue Officer in performance of his duty without touching the right of the person in the land, but whenever such entries interferes with the right of a person in the record of rights, and such person feels aggrieved for correction of such entries he had to approach civil court for declaration under section 53 of the Act or in other words under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act...."
' This principle as stated herein above was followed by the august Supreme Court in Waris Khan v.
Colonel Hamayun Shah PLD 1994 SC 336 and in another case titled Niamat Ali v. Malik Habibullah 2004 SCMR 604, wherein the august Supreme Court further explained that longstanding entries in the Revenue Records are to be interfered with only on the orders of the civil courts and not in a summary manner by the revenue authorities under the Act. The august Supreme Court held:- "It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner wanted change of longstanding entries in the Revenue Record in a summary manner by the Collector. The rights of the parties as agitated by both the sides are to be determined qua the property under dispute by giving them opportunity to adduce their evidence. Admittedly, in the present case these factual controversies; can only be resolved by the civil Court which has got the plenary jurisdiction. "
' In Abdur Rehman v. Syed Sultan Ali Shah 1998 SCMR 1589 the august Supreme Court Went to the extent of recognizing possessor's right of a co-owner in a joint undivided property. The Supreme Court held that a co-owner could possess land even beyond the limits of his proprietary rights and retain the same till the joint property was divided through partition. Even this Court has also in Muhammad Nawaz v. Provincial Government PLD 1997 Pesh: 1 discussed the power of the civil court vis-k-vis the revenue court regarding changes in the entries of the Revenue Record. This Court was pleased to hold, in the eloquence of Qazi Farooq J., (as he then was):- ".... The entries thus made subsisted for more than 70 years. Sometime in the year, 1987 the defendant Mir Nawaz felt aggrieved by those entries but instead of filing a civil suit got the same obliterated by filing an application before an obliging Revenue Officer. No doubt under clause (iv) of subsection (2) of section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act a Revenue Officer is empowered to order correction of an entry in a record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations but this power is restricted to the correction of an entry which is patently wrong and cannot be exercised in regard to an entry which involved a question of right determinable by the civil court within the import of section 53 ibid or any entry which is longstanding "
The "ratio decidendi" of the above legal pronouncements clearly vests the civil court to adjudicate upon any contentious matter, more particularly when the same relates to longstanding entries in the Revenue Record.
2. The matter relating to the issue of appointment of a commission to report the actual possession of the parties over the suit property has already been decided in revision by the District Court vide order dated 27-5-2005 and this Court in its revisional jurisdiction is barred under section 115(4), C.P.C, to entertain such matter.
' Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to produce any convincing evidence, ocular or documentary, to suggest his actual possession over the suit property.
' The intent behind the appointment of a commission is not for the parties to substantiate their claims, when they have been unable to produce cogent and convincing evidence to prove their claims. The courts below have, thus, exercised their jurisdiction correctly.
11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
' No order as to costs.