1. WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This appeal has been filed against order dated 11-8-2010, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, through which appeal of Rab Nawaz was accepted.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Muhammad Hassan, the appellant is cultivating 79-kanals of land owned by his sister Mst. Anis Begum. The appellant applied for correction of khasra girdawari in year 2008, in respect of 53-kanals, 17-marlas of land. The learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, obtained report from the revenue field staff and possession of the appellant over the said land was proved. Thereafter, the respondents presented status quo of the civil court and learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, adjourned the case sine die. However, after vacation of the status quo, the learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, accepted application and granted permission for correction of record. The respondents filed an appeal before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was accepted on 11-8-2010 and application of the appellant for correction of record was rejected without consultation of the record and application of judicial mind. The report called by this Hon'ble court from the learned District Collector has also established possession of the appellant over the above said land. The respondents obtained orders from the learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, dated 19-8-2008 and 27-1-2010 without impleading the appellant as party. That case was between Muhammad Khan and respondents.
3. The learned lower court did not keep in view this aspect of the case while passing the impugned orders, which is not in accordance with law. On the force of above arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. 3.Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the remaining co-sharers of the Wanda No.2 were not made party in the revision petition. The present respondents filed an application for partition of land of joint khata to the Tehsildar, which was accepted and wandas were framed accordingly. The present respondents filed an appeal against the partition order before learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was accepted on 26-5-2010 and framed Wanda No.1 in their favour to the extent of 72-kanals, 5-marlas and the remaining land was kept joint in Wanda No.2 relating to the present appellant. They were not impleaded as party. The said order was challenged by Mst. Anis Begum, only one of the co-sharers of Wanda No.2 before learned Commissioner and the same is pending for want of decision of this Hon'ble court. The respondents submitted an application before District Collector, Multan, for correction of khasra girdawari regarding crop Rabi, 2008, who vide order dated 9-8-2008 granted permission regarding Khasra Nos.250/22, 23 and 280/2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13. 18 and 19 measuring 72-kanals, 5-marlas and the present respondents are still maintaining their possession over the said land. Muhammad Khan filed an appeal before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was dismissed on 27-1- 2010. He did not challenge that order. Therefore, it has attained finality. Muhammad Hassan malafidely submitted an application for correction of record to the learned District Collector, which was accepted on 29-4-2010 without hearing the respondents. The appeal of the respondents against that order was accepted on 11-8-2010. The controversy regarding correction of record had already been decided by the learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, vide order dated 9-8-2008 and appeal filed by Muhammad Khan against that order was also dismissed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, on 27-1-2010. Therefore, the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed. While concluding the arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. 4.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through record available in the case file including the impugned orders, reports submitted by revenue authorities and written arguments submitted by the parties. The facts of the case are that land measuring 1034-Kanals 07-Marlas situated in Mouza Lothar was in the joint ownership. Allah Yar, one of the co- sharer of this joint khata and owner to the extent of 1/4 of this land, is predecessor, of the parties.
6. Upon death of said Allah Yar, the inheritance Mutation No.1975 was entered vide order dated 7-5- 1994 in favour of successors including the respondents (being successors of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, who was son of Allah Yar) and Hassan Sher (paternal uncle of respondents and husband of Anees Begum). This fact, which shows that the parties are close relatives and matter involves inherited property, has been considered to understand the true complexion of the case.
7. Coming towards issue in hand, as per khasra girdawri, in year 2007-08, (when the land was in joint khata) the possession of the same land was in the name of Muhammad Khan son of Allah Yar (Paternal Uncle of the respondents). The respondents filed an application in year 2008 before learned District Collector, Multan, for correction of khasra gardawri. The same was accepted vide order dated 9-8-2008 and khasra gardawari was changed accordingly, in favour of respondents.
8. The operative para of the order is as under:--- Against the order, Muhammad Khan filed an appeal before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was dismissed vide orderdated27-1- 2010.Theoperativeparaoftheorderisas under:--- "I have heard the counsel of the parties and perused the record. The respondents are owner of land measuring 72 kanals, 15 marlas. The respondent No.1 who is brother of respondents Nos.2 to 4 applied to the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector Multan for correction of record of khasra gardawari as heiscultivatingthelandcomprisingKhasraNos.250/22,23-280/2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19 but his name is not recorded in the record of khasra gardawri rather the name of appellant has been recorded wrongly as cultivator of above mentioned khasra numbers. The District Officer (Revenue)
9. Multan after obtaining report from the revenue field staff has granted necessary permission for correction of record of khasra gardawri relating to the crop Rabi-2008. The lower court has done nothing against law. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality/irregularity in the impugned order.
10. In view of aforementioned reasons, I find no force in this appeal and same is rejected".
11. Against this order, no appeal was filed and so the same attained finality. Meanwhile, the present petitioner, Muhammad Hassan filed an application for correction of khasra gardawari on 12-11- 2008 about the same land before learned District Collector, Multan, which was sine die adjourned on 7-7-2009 due to status quo order of civil court issued in case titled "Rab Nawab and others v.
12. Muhammad Khan and others". The same was re-fixed in the peshi on the application of the present petitioner stating therein that the stay has been vacated and the case was decided on 29-4-2010 granting permission for correction in khasra gardawari against the present respondents, ex parte.
13. The operative para of the order is as under:--- "I have heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is established from the report of DDO (Revenue) Saddar Multan, that cultivation possession of the disputed land in Kharif 2008 was with the applicant and the entries of khara girdawari are fictitious and in contravention of spot.
14. The non-attendance of the respondents' also corroborate the fact that the respondents are not in possession over the disputed area at the spot and the entries of crop inspection report have got altered only for showing possession in partition case.
15. In view of above, I exercise of powers under section 172 Land Revenue Act 1967 grant permission to correct the entries of crop inspection report for Kharif 2008 in respect of Khasra numbers 247/23- 250/3, 8, 18, 23, 280/3, 8, 18 in favour of applicant. The Revenue Officer concerned is directed to proceed further as per law."
16. Against the order, the present respondents filed an appeal before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which was decided vide order dated 11-8-2010. The operative part is as under:-- - I have heard the counsel of the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the record that District Collector (Revenue) Multan had already accepted the possession of the appellants over the land in dispute vide earlier order dated 9-8-2008. The appeal filed by one Muhammad Hassan against the said order dated 9-8-2008 has also been rejected by this court vide order dated 27-7- 2010. It is further evident from the record that District Officer (Revenue) Multan vide order dated 7- 7-2009 had sine die the application of respondent for correction of khasra gardawri relating to the disputed land till the final decision from the civil court and court of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan. The lower court, upon an application of the respondent that status quo order granted by the civil court has been vacated, restored the application, of the respondent and passed the impugned order dated 29-4-2010 in favour of respondent without perusing the order dated 27-1-2010 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan in respect of the disputed land. The impugned order is an ex parte order and lower court without consulting the record of the case has wrongly granted permission for correction of khasra gardawri in favour of respondent. Besides this, the partition of the land in dispute has been finalized before the District Officer (Revenue) Multan and its implementation has also been made in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No.7009. In this way, any correction of khasra gardawri in respect of disputed land will be fatal for both the parties.
17. 5.As mentioned earlier that the impugned land is inherited property of the parties and was in joint khata, so the respondents filed a partition application before Tehsildar, Saddar Multan, which was decided on 12-8-2009 and three wandajaats were approved, one of the respondents, second of Anees Begum (the sister of present petitioner) and third one joint. Against this order, the respondents (Rab Nawaz etc.) filed an appeal before learned District Collector, Multan, which was subsequently transferred to District Collector, Khanewal, by the then learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. The appeal was accepted vide order dated 26-5-2010, two wandajaats were approved, one of the respondents and the other joint. The operative part is as under:--- Wanda No.1 Rab Nawaz etc. 280/2,3,8,9,12,13,18,19,250/23-22/1measuring 72-K, 05-M.
18. Wanda No.2 Remaining land joint khata.
19. This order was implemented in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No.7009, dated 7-6-2010. The area measuring 72K-5M, bearing Khasra No.280/2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19 250/22/1-23, was given to present respondents and remaining land remained as joint khata. Against this order, Anees Begum, filed an appeal titled "Anees Begum v. Rab Nawaz and others" before learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, which is pending adjudication before him.
20. 6.From the whole discussion, it appeared that actually the matter isofpartitionofjointownershipoflandmeasuring1034-Kanals 07-Marlas, out of which the petitioner's entitlement is 79-Kanlas and respondent's entitlement is 72-Kanals 15-Marlas: In year 2008, khasra gardawari of impugned land bearing Khasra Nos.250/22, 23, 280/2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, was corrected in the name of respondents from one Muhammad Khan (Paternal Uncle of the respondent and cousin of the petitioner and Mst. Anees Begum) by the learned District Collector, Multan, vide order dated 9-8-2008. Subsequently, the respondents moved an application for partition of joint khata to Tehsildar/AC-I, Saddar Multan,whoapprovedfollowingthreewandajatsvideorderdated 12-8-2009:-- - Wanda No.1 Rab Nawaz etc. Bearing Khasra Nos.247/22/1, 250/2, 9, 12, 19, 22, 280/2, 9, 12, 19 measuring 72-K, 15-M.
21. Wanda No.2, Anees Begum etc. Bearing Khara Nos.247/22/2, 23, 250/3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 280/3, 8, 13, 18 measuring 79-Kanals Wanda No.3 Remaining land Joint Khata Aggrieved by the order, the present respondents moved to learned District Collector, Multan, who decided the matter vide order dated 26-5-2010 and approved following two wandas:--- Wanda No.1 Rab Nawaz etc. 280/2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 19, 250/22/1, 23 measuring 72-K, 15-M.
22. Wanda No.02 Remaining land joint khata.
23. The order of learned District Collector, dated 26-5-2010, regarding partition was implemented in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No.7009, dated 7-6-2010. Now, an appeal is pending before learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner wants the wandas approved by the Tehsildar to be implemented, whereas, the respondent's choice is wanda approved by the learned District Collector, Multan. Through the instant petition, the petitioner wants to influence the partition proceedings by getting the khasra girdawari corrected in their name, so that, he may be benefited positively in partition proceedings pending before learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. Whereas the position of khasra gardawari in present revenue record is result off correction allowed by learned District Collector, upheld by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan and partition decided by learned District Collector. So, the question of correction of khasra girdawari becomes irrelevant as the matter of partition of joint khata is to be adjudicated upon by the learned Commissioner, Multan. Further, the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order dated 11-8-2010, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan.
24. 7.Hence,theappealisdismissed.Theimpugnedorderdated11-8-2010, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, is upheld.