' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5-5-2004 passed by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue/respondent No,1 in ROR No,1850 of 2002, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 30- 9-2002 passed by the learned EDO(R) Sheikhupura in favour of respondent No,2 was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 96 kanals situated in Mouza Sultanpura Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, the detail of the land has been fully described in para. 1 of the petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of execution of agreement, the petitioner was delivered the possession of the suit-land. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer incharge of that Revenue Circle conducted the demarcation and incorporated the name of the petitioner in the Register Khasra Girdawari. The report of demarcation conducted by Naib Tehsildar was challenged at various forums and ultimately the learned Member (Judicial- II) Board of Revenue in ROR No,1850 of 2002 decided the matter against the petitioner. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell in respect of the suit-land, which is pending before the civil Court. He contends that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 5-5-2004 passed by respondent No,1 in R.O.R No, 1 850/2002 may be declared as without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and it may be ordered that the possession of the petitioner be recorded in Register Khasra Girdawari according to order dated 18-4-1998 as the petitioner was in possession of the suit-land at the time of Rabi 1996 and Kharif 1997.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this writ petition and has contended that khasra girdawari cannot be directed to be maintained or corrected in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel further contends that there is an express bar under section 172 of the Land Revenue Act that the civil court has no jurisdiction in the matters which fall within the ambit of revenue hierarchy, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused
6. The perusal of record shows that the petitioner claims the ownership of the suit land on the basis of an agreement to sell while respondent No,2 survived by his legal heirs claims the ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of registered sale-deed. In this case, a number of controversial questions of facts are involved. First of all, the express bar of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act in relation to the jurisdiction of civil court in revenue matters and secondly the status of an agreement to sell which does not create a title but it empowers the executant to sue and after cogent evidence established his right over a property. Because until and unless the agreement to sell is established and proved by cogent reasons, it does not create any title. So far as the possession of the parties over the suit-land is concerned, a number of demarcations were conducted by the competent authorities because of dissatisfaction of the parties. First of all, Naib Tehsildar, who is the revenue incharge of the circle where the suit-land is situated, carried out the demarcation and submitted his report in favour of the petitioner. This demarcation report was challenged by respondent No, 2, so the Tehsildar conducted the second demarcation whereby the Tehsildar showed that the suit land is in possession of respondent No,
2. The petitioner assailed the demarcation report of the Tehsildar and one Mr. Naveed Haider Sherazi, learned Magistrate, was deputed to conduct the demarcation who returned the file on account of his personal reasons.
Thereafter, Mr. Tahir Ahmed Sindhu, learned Magistrate 1st Class, conducted two demarcations in respect of the same land, out of which one report was in favour of the petitioner while the other was in favour of respondent No,2. This report too was assailed in review and revision upto the level of the Board of Revenue.
7. The concept of possession and the concept of cultivation are two different things both in common sense and in law. A piece of land may be possessed without being cultivated. Even in common sense, a tenant is not supposed to cultivate each harvest of his tenancy. It would be preposterous to assume that pending the lease of piece of land under his cultivation, he loses his possession over it. It is, therefore, prima facie clear that the concept of possession and the concept of cultivation are two different things. It may be noted that the entry girdawari is not the possession but it is a reflection of possession. Girdawari does not prove that somebody was in possession on the day when it was recorded. The contention of petitioner that change of entry in khasra girdawari will prejudice the case of the petitioner in the learned civil court is misconceived because Register Khasra Girdawari is kept under the custody of Patwari who conducts harvest inspections twice in a year; first Rabi harvest inspection which is carried out from 15th of March to 15th of April and the second Kharif inspection which is done from 15th of September to 15th of October.
9. Mere an entry in Register Khasra Girdawari by a Patwari does not confer any right because Patwari is a village officer who is inter alia responsible to keep the B Revenue Record up-to-date and conduct harvest inspections twice in a year but he cannot change the possession. So, the change of possession by Patwari carries no legal status unless it is also incorporated in register Taghayyar Kasht {{URDU TEXT}} which must be verified by the field Qanungo and countersigned by the Revenue Officer who is incharge of that revenue circle. A number of demarcations were conducted in respect of the suit land. Out of findings of various officers, some reports are in favour or the petitioner while the others are in favour of respondent No,
2. These controversial questions particularly the correction of Register Khasra Girdawari cannot be raised in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, I find support from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case, "Ghulam Nabi and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others" reported as 2003 SCM R 1780.
10. The petitioner has already instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which is pending before a competent civil Court.
11. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is devoid of merit. No interference is called for. .