' SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J -This Appeal, by leave of the Court, impugns the Judgment of the learned Lahore High, Court (Lahore), in Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2009 filed by the Appellants whereby same was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the Consolidation. Scheme of Village Noorpur Ketvi, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahauddin was confirmed on 31.7.1977. Upon an Appeal being filed by Respondent No. 2 some amendments were made in the same by ADC (C), Gujrat on 17.12.1978.
Another Co-Sharer filed a Revision which was allowed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 17.4.1980. Thereafter a Revision filed by Respondent No. 2 was allowed by the Board of Revenue on 28.3.1983. Again on 27.4.2000 Respondent No. 2 filed a Petition for initiating suo Motu Revision proceedings claiming reduction of entitlement which was considered by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who after examining the record referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. Ultimately the said Revision Petition was allowed on 13.9.2003. A Review Petition filed by the Appellants against such Order was dismissed on .14.10.2008. The Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2009 against the Order dated 14.10.2008 but withdrew the same on 26.1.2009 with permission to file afresh after consulting the revenue records and filing the requisite documents.
Consequently a fresh Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2009 was filed by the Appellants which as noted above was dismissed by the learned High Court.
3. Sheikh Naveed Shahryar, learned ASC appearing for the Appellants has firstly contended that all the revenue forums have focused only on the Respondent No. 2's entitlement and not considered whether in the exercise undertaken by them, the Appellant's land would be decreased. This according to learned ASC is a fundamental flaw-with the proceedings conducted by the revenue authorities and hence liable to be interfered with. His second contention is that after the consolidation proceedings .Are Over, the consolidation authorities became functus officio and consequently the matter could not ,be reopened again .For which proposition he has relied on Atta Muhammad and 6 others v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab/Lahore and 9 others (.2002 CLC 464), Kala vs. Board of Revenue and another (PLD 1985 SC 208> and Member- (Colonies) Board.Of Revenue. Punjab. Lahore and others V. Muhammad shaft and others (200,8 SC MR 589). Learned ASC has further submitted that the revenue authorities could not reopen a 17 years old case when the same had been finally disposed of at the behest of Respondent No. 2 in the year 1983 which was in the sole domain of the Civil Courts as disputed questions of fact were in issue. For this proposition he has relied on Azmat Alt and another v Malik Habib Ullah and another (2004 SCMR 604), Waris Khan and 18 others v. CoL Humayun Shah and 41 others (PLD 1994 SC 336), Muhammad Ishaq v. Member (R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and I8 others (1994 MLD 2254) and Ikram Ullah v. Zakir Ullah and 5 others (PLJ 2011 Peshawar 34).
4. In. Rebuttal Mr. Noor Muhammad A wan, learned ASC appearing for Respondent No. Z has submitted that the correction of the land record is permissible at any time under Section 166 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with para 7.44(F) of the Land Record Manual and consequently the exercise undertaken by the revenue authorities was perfectly valid. According to him a clerical or inadvertent mistake in the land revenue record was liable to be corrected by the revenue authorities at any stage. In the present matter the Respondent No. 2's share was wrongly mentioned as 14132 instead of 15132 and hence could be corrected. In support of this submission he has relied upon Dilmir and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Ldhore and 9 others (PLD 1991 Lahore 314), and Syed Saadi Jafri Zainabi v. Land Acquisition Collector and Assistant Commissioner (PLD 1992 SC 472). As regards Mr. Sheikh Naveed Shahryar's contention that after the consolidation proceedings have been closed, the consolidation authorities became, funcnis officio.
Mr. Noor Muhammad Awan has -submitted that in fact the application placed before the Respondent No. 2 in the year 2000 was not in the nature of a revision at all but a plea to the authorities concerned that as a result of the consolidation proceedings his land holding had been reduced. Consequently the Board of Revenue in its general jurisdiction under Section 166 of the concerned the rectification of an error which was apparent on the record. For, this proposition he has. Relied upon Government of NWFP through Chief secretary and 3 others v, Abdul Malik (1994 SCMR 833) and Federal Government of Pakistan and another v. Khurshid Zaman Khan and others (1999 SCMR 1007). Finally learned ASC has submitted that the mutation in the revenue record are not documents of title and any entry in every jamabandi gives a fresh cause of action and hence correction can be ordered at any stage for which proposition he has relied on Government of NWFP v. Abdul Malik (1995 SCMR 284) and Muhammad As lam v. Sana Ullah through Legal Heirs (2012 CLC 1023)?
5. Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, learned Additional Advocate General has fully supported the arguments of Mr. Noor Muhammad A wan as well as the impugned Judgment.
6. We have shear both the learned ASCs appearing for the parties as well as learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record with their assistance.
7. In our opinion the record would demonstrate that tactually there was a reduction of 72 kanals and 14 marlas of land in the entitlement of Respondent No. 2 as a result of consolidation proceedings which could not be controverted by the Appellants at any stage. This occurred as in one khewat, the Respondent No. 2's mother's share had not been given to him and in another khewat his entire share* was missing. The matter was taken up in suo motu, proceedings by the Board of Revenue where this fact was confirmed in favour of Respondent No. 2 and hence relief was granted to him, Even before the learned High Court, the Appellants could not demonstrate any error in the findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue as to reduction in Respondent No. 2's land as a result of consolidation proceedings. So also it would be seen that earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 1264 of 2009 was withdrawn by the Appellants' counsel on the ground that he would be filing some documents after consulting the revenue record in support of his claim which he failed to do as observed in the impugned Judgment. Consequently seen from whatever angle it has been abundantly established that the consolidation proceedings deprived Respondent No. 2 of 72 kanals and 14 marlas of land which was corrected thereafter by the revenue authorities.
7. As to the Judgments cited by Mr. Sheikh Naveed Shahryar i.e. Atta Muhammad and 6 others {supra) that the consolidation authorities after finalisation of the consolidation scheme had become functus officio, suffice it to say that the matter was re-agitated by the Respondent No. 2 not under the consolidation scheme but under Suo motu Revision Proceedings regarding reduction of his land. In our opinion the subsequent proceedings before the revenue authorities were not consolidation proceedings but under the general jurisdiction -conferred upon them for the purpose of correcting C any error on the record and such powers are amply available to them under Section-166 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for which there is no limitation. In this regard it is worth noting that the jurisdiction given to. The revenue authorities under Section 166 (supra) is of a wide ranging . Nature and in a manner of speaking is similar to Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 164 {ibid). However as noted above the jurisdictionfunder Section 166 is limited to Correcting. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes etc. In any event we have already observed that the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 in the year 2000 before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was transmitted to the Boafrl of Revenue as obviously he did not have any jurisdiction once the consolidation proceedings were over.
7B. Regarding learned ASC's argument that a 17 years old case could not be reopened in the revenue side for the purpose of correction in the record- for which only the Civil Courts have jurisdiction, we. May observe that per Section 172(2)(vi) of the Act 1967, only the revenue authorities are entitled to correct any entry in a record-of- rights, periodical entry or register of mutation to the exclusion of the Civil Courts, of course which are not controversial in nature. In the present matter, it was found that as a result of consolidation proceedings, Respondent No. 2's land was reduced due to an error which was corrected and despite numerous opportunities the Appellant could not justify his claim to further land than that which fell to his share. Ih our opinion there was hardly any controversy involved in this exercise. The cases cited by learned ASC against this proposition i.e. Nemat Ali, Warn Khan, Muhammad Mat? And Ikramullah (Supra) concerned factual controversies with either parties agitating their respective pleas as to their rights in the same land and hence were adversarial in nature and to that extent are distinguishable.
1C. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no force in this Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. /High Court Upheld..