1. ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- Petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to impugn the order dated 11-11-2010 passed by Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue, Punjab.
2. 2.Brief facts leading to this constitutional petition are that on 11-5-2005 petitioners filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue) Chakwal for correction of Record of Rights for the year 1939-1940 pertaining to Khewat No.154 in Mouza Veero Tehsil and District Chakwal. The District Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 6-12-2005 allowed the sought for correction on the basis of report of field staff and in consequence thereof Mutation No.1459 was sanctioned on 28-12-2005.
3. Respondents challenged the said Mutation No.1459 in appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Chakwal which was rejected vide order dated 12-9-2007 on the ground that order of District Officer (Revenue) dated 6-12-2005 was holding the field. Respondents assailed the said order of Deputy District Officer (Revenue) before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Chakwal through Revision Petition under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 which was also dismissed vide order dated 6-10-2009. Respondents challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore through RORs Nos.2114/2009 and 2115/2009. The learned Member Board of Revenue accepted both the revision petitions through the impugned order dated 11-11-2010 in the following manner:--- "5.I have heard the arguments in detail and perused the record. Long standing entries pertaining to over seventy years have been changed by the DO(R)/District Collector on the basis of a report of the revenue field staff vide his order dated, 6-12-2005. This order of the DO(R) was passed ex parte stating therein that the parties were summoned and thereafter, proclamation in press was issued.
4. It is indeed strange that the parties who are still in joint possession were never informed through the revenue staff. A number of transactions have taken place in the last seventy years and new vendees/transferees have stepped in, who were never made a party. The EDO(R) vide his impugned orders have also not taken into account the fact while chaining long standing entries, detailed evidence as well as association of subsequent vendees/bona fide purchasers was mandatory being necessary parties. Therefore, I accept both the revision petitions and set aside the impugned orders of EDO(R) Chakwal dated 6-10-2009 and of DO(R)/District Collector, Chakwal dated 6-12-2005 and also the order of DDO(R), Chakwal dated 12-9-2007. As a result of which Mutation No.1459 sanctioned on 28-12-2005 is also cancelled. However, the parties are at liberty to seek their remedy before the civil court which is a proper forum in such cases."
5. Petitioners being aggrieved have impugned the above order through this constitutional petition.
6. 3.It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the observation of learned Member Board of Revenue that petitioners should approach the civil court is illegal as the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Article 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 relating to the correction of any entry in the record of rights exclusively falling within the jurisdiction of the revenue officer; that wrong entries in the revenue record could only be corrected by the Revenue Officer and that learned Member Board of Revenue erred in law while allowing the revision petitions through the impugned order; that the observation of the learned Member Board of Revenue that respondents were not legally proceeded against ex parte during the proceedings before the Revenue Officer and District Officer (Revenue) is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence as the respondents were co-sharers and did not turn up to join the proceedings before the Revenue Officer and District Officer (Revenue) despite proclamation in the newspaper; that observation of learned Member Board of Revenue that in the meanwhile a number of transactions have taken place in favour of various bona fide purchasers who were not impleaded as party is not supported by any documentary evidence; that the impugned order passed by learned Member Board of Revenue is illegal, without lawful authority, perverse, erroneous and liable to set aside.
7. Takes reliance upon (i) Dilmir and others v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1991 Lahore 314), (ii) Ghulam Muhammad v. Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and 10 others (1989 CLC 831), (iii) Sardar Khan v. Ghulam Hussain and 31 others (2003 YLR 1788), (iv) Misri through Legal Heirs and others v.
8. Muhammad Sharif and others (1997 SCMR 338), (v) Mst. Gulzar Bibi and 2 others v. Chief Commissioner and 19 others (2009 CLC 542) and (vi) Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Manzoor Ahmad and others (2006 SCMR 1534).
9. 4.It is resisted by learned counsel for the respondents with the contentions that Fazal Khan predecessor of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 had earlier asserted his ownership in the disputed land through civil suit for declaration etc. lodged on 25-10-1993 which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge Chakwal vide judgment dated 5-3-1996; that appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Chakwal vide judgment dated 9-12-1999; that against the said judgment Civil Revision No.186-D-2000 before this Court was withdrawn vide order dated 16-2- 2004. Further contends that petitioners Nos.7 to 9 successors of Fazal Hussain had also filed a suit for permanent injunction on 7-9-1999 asserting their Hisadari ownership and possession on the basis of some family settlement which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge Chakwal vide judgment and decree dated 5-4-2004; that the said judgment and decree dated was never assailed through appeal; that despite the above decisions of Civil Courts upto this Court, the District Officer (Revenue) illegally allowed the correction while passing the impugned order dated 6-12-2005 and in consequence thereof Mutation No.1459 was sanctioned on 28-12-2005 against law and facts and without lawful authority which are untenable; that even the report of field revenue staff indicates that since the year 1939-40 up till now numerous mutations concerning the land in dispute had been sanctioned accruing valuable rights in favour of bona fide purchasers in possession who were neither impleaded nor served upon with any notice in accordance with the law denying the principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice; that it is established principle of law that long standing entries in the Record of Rights involving intricate questions of title cannot be altered by the Revenue Authorities in a summary manner; that the learned Member Board of Revenue with application of judicious mind has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with law and facts; that there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue therefore petitioners have no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is made upon (i) Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs (1992 SCMR 2334) (ii) Himat alias Allah Deya v. Rehmat (2004 YLR 2992).
10. 5.Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. 6.Petitioners raised the plea before the District Officer (Revenue) through the application dated 11- 5-2005 that certain transactions were not correctly incorporated in the Revenue Record resulting into reduction of their share in the joint khata during the period from the year 1900 to 1939-40. The said application was lodged by the petitioners after 65 years of the preparation of Record of Rights for the year 1939-40. It is evident on the record that in the meanwhile a lot of transactions have taken place in favour of various bona fide purchasers who were not impleaded as parties at any stage before the revenue hierarchy up to the level of Executive District Officer (Revenue) Chakwal.
12. There is no cavil to the proposition that section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars the jurisdiction of civil court in the matters relating to the correction of any entry in the record of rights which exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer, however it is pertinent to mention that jurisdiction of a Revenue Officer in such a matter is determined by section 44 of the Act, 1967 ibid which manifests that if during the preparation of any record or in the course of any inquiry under this chapter a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations a Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, but subject to provisions of section 45 of the Act, 1967 and after such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter and record his reasons thereof. It clearly manifests and established by now that once an entry has been made in the record of rights the presumption of truth was attached to it in terms of section 52 of the Act, 1967 untill the contrary was proved or the new entries were substituted therefor. Such presumption can only be dislodged by having recourse through a remedy provided under section 53 of the Act, 1967 which manifests that if any person considers himself aggrieved of any entry in record of rights as to any right which he is in possession he may institute a suit for declaration of his rights under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. It is well-settled that jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred to question the correctness of the entries of revenue record. The proposition raised by learned counsel for the petitioners has been aptly discussed and set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Yousaf (1992 SCMR 2334). The relevant extract whereof reads below:--- "We have anxiously considered the relevant provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Section 172 barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in certain matters exclusively within the competence of the Revenue Officers which have been enumerated in subsection (2). Section 44 relates to the determination of disputes arising during the course of making, revision, or preparation of record or in the course of any inquiry under Chapter-VI relating to record of rights and periodical record. But once the inquiry is made or the entries recorded in the Revenue Record, a presumption of truth is attached to it under section 52 of the Act ibid until the contrary is proved or the new entries are substituted therefor. To dislodge this presumption a remedy is provided under section 53 of the said Act which provides that if any person considers himself aggrieved by an entry in a record-of- rights or in periodical record as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his rights under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 Act (I of 1877). Apparently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not ousted to question the correctness of the entries of Revenue Record, or declaration of title under the Specific Relief Act, or claiming relief of possession of immovable property, rather aggrieved party has been invested with a right to challenge the entries made in the Land Revenue Act through a suit for declaration in Civil Court."
13. In view of the above quoted dictum of the Hon'ble apex Court it becomes crystal clear that in the given circumstances of this case District Officer (Revenue) erred in law while passing the impugned order dated 6-12-2005 for correction of long standing entries of the Record of Rights.
14. Executive District Officer (Revenue) Chakwal illegally maintained the order dated 6-12-2005 without application of judicious mind. In view of the above learned Member Board of Revenue taking into consideration the material facts and relevant law in a salutary manner rightly passed the impugned order dated 11-11-2010. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order therefore petitioners have no case to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
15. 7.Case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners being distinguishable on facts is not helpful to the petitioner.
16. 8.For the above reasons this constitutional petition having no merit is dismissed.