' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court has been filed to call in question the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 29.03.2013, whereby second appeal filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The necessary facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff-appellant, herein, filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Mirpur on 20.12.2005, stating therein that the land measuring 5 kanals, 2 marlas, comprising survey Nos. 3319, 3320, 3321 (new), 1064 (old), is in the ownership of plaintiff- appellant and pro forma-defendants. In the new settlement prepared for the year 1994-95, the Settlement Department assigned new survey numbers to the previous survey number i,e,, 1064, measuring 5 kanal 2 marla 3319 measuring 3 kanal, 3320 measuring 1 kanal 8 marla and 3321 measuring 11 marla. Later on, the land measuring 11 marla from survey No, 3320 was kept out of the ownership of the plaintiff and pro forma-defendants and instead of showing that the ownership it was shown as shamlat-deh land. Apart from the declaration, it was prayed that necessary correction in the entries may also be made in the revenue record. After seeking written statement from the other party, the trial Court heard the arguments on issues Nos. 3 to 5 and dismissed the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Dissatisfied from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Mirpur which was entrusted to the Additional District Judge, Dadyal, Camp Mirpur. The appeal met the same fate. Second appeal before the High Court also failed, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant after. narration of necessary facts submitted that the trial Court has fell in error of law while dismissing the suit on technical ground of jurisdiction. The Courts below have not ever bothered to take into the consideration the averments made in the plaint. It appears that the objections raised merely on the face value, have been considered without application of judicial mind and according to the spirit of law. The trial Court has only considered one portion of the plaint regarding the correction in the entries of revenue record while ignoring the other important contents of the plaint. Both the appellate Courts have ditto the findings of the trial Court without having any regard to the contents of the plaint. He further submitted that for resolution of such proposition, the basic material is the averments of the plaint. According to the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant clearly averred that the private-defendants with the connivance of the officials of the revenue department have tampered with the revenue record and made wrong entries. Same like, the private- respondents have forcefully taken into possession some portion of the disputed land. The plaintiff has also prayed for decree of perpetual injunction. It is further averred that it is not mere a matter of correction of revenue record rather the officials of the Revenue Department with ulterior motive have also illegally tampered with the record. Thus, when the conduct of the officials of Revenue Department was also called in question, then in such situation how the remedy before the revenue department can be treated as legal and efficacious one. The Courts below due to non- consideration of the averments of the plaint merely on the basis of case law, have fallen in misconception which resulted into incorrect conclusion. Thus, for the ends of justice, the impugned judgments and decrees require reversal and consequently by accepting this appeal, the case be remanded to the trial Court for conducting the proceedings according to law. He placed reliance on the case reported as Kh. Muhammad Akbar and 5 others v. Kh. Fateh Muhammad and 16 others [2000 SCR 211] and the case titled Nazar Muhammad v. Khurshid Ahmed and others (Civil Appeal No, 91/2009 decided on 02.12.2011).
4. Conversely, Raja Hassan Alchtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the Courts below have drawn the right conclusion according to the spirit of law. This Court has already enunciated principle of law that in the light of the provisions of section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in such like matters and remedy can only be sought from the revenue Courts. He further submitted that it has also been held by this Court that no Civil Court can issue decree for correction of revenue record. Thus, the suit has rightly been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No illegality has been committed, therefore, this appeal has no merits and liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the case reported as Sardar Khan v. Ghulam Hussain and 31 others 2003 YLR 1788.5. We have paid our utmost attention to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that neither the contents of the plaint have been discussed nor the nature of the suit and relief prayed for, has been considered. Merely while confining the suit to the extent of correction of revenue record and referring to the case law, the suit has been dismissed, which, in our opinion, is not a proper course of law. For deciding such like proposition, it was enjoined upon the Courts below to have a proper appreciation of all the averments of the plaint as a whole and thereafter draw the proper conclusion.
6. In the instant case, the statement of the facts made in the plaint is composite and complex one.
The plaintiff has attributed some acts of tampering with record to the officials of Revenue Department and has also prayed for declaratory decree as well as a decree for possession. Thus, merely on the ground that one of the prayed remedy in the plaint cannot be granted, the suit cannot be dismissed while ignoring the other prayers made in the plaint. The matter of remedies has to be resolved by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the suit as to which of the remedy has to be granted or refused, but while picking one of the remedies out of several ones, the suit cannot be dismissed if the others are permissible under law. According to the nature of this suit, the statutory provisions of section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967, are attracted which speak that a party aggrieved from the entries in the revenue record can file declaratory suit.
6. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents and the referred judgments are concerned, this proposition has already been resolved by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly placed reliance on the case titled Nazar Muhammad v. Khurshid Ahmed and others (Civil Appeal No, 91 of 2009 decided on 02.12.2011). It will be useful to reproduce here paragraphs 5 and 6 of the same which reads as under: "5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant filed a suit primarily for declaration to the effect that he has purchased half of the land falling in survey Nos. 1362/474, measuring 2 kanal 11 marla, No, 476, measuring 15 kanal 13 marla, No, 1362/474-min, measuring 2 kanal 11 marla, total measuring 20 kanal 15 marla and a compromise decree was passed in his favour on 20.01.1975. He further alleged that in the new settlement he has been shown as ghair mauroos in the land in new survey Nos.
1059, 1059/1 and 1092. The assertion of the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 that the suit was only for correction of entries in the revenue record is not correct. The suit was Primarily for declaration. Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, postulates that if any person considers himself grieved 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). It will be useful to reproduce the same, which reads as under:-- `53. Suit for the declaratory decrees by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record.---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).'
7. A perusal of section leaves no doubt that if any person is aggrieved by an entry in the revenue record, which is adverse to his rights, he may file declaratory suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Under Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in certain matters which are specifically enumerated therein. The filing of civil suit is specifically covered by section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. A combined reading of Section 53 and Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, shows that the suits for declaration in respect of adverse entries in the revenue record can competently be filed by an aggrieved person in a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. This point came under consideration of this Court in the case titled Kh. Muhammad Akbar and 5 others v. Kh. Fateh Muhammad and 16 others reported as 2000 SCR 211. It was observed by this Court as under:-- ' The basic controversy between the parties is regarding the extent of the shares of the parties in the suit land. The declaration regarding the shares of the plaintiffs is not barred Under Section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act. Section 53 of the Revenue Act gives right to a person considering himself an aggrieved by any entry in the record of rights or any periodical record, to institute a civil suit for the redressal of his grievance under the provisions of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; the joint reading of section 53 and section 172(2)(vi) of the Revenue Act makes it amply clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents is triable by the civil Court, except to issue direction to the revenue authorities to correct the entries in the revenue record. If one of the reliefs sought by the respondents cannot be given to them due to lack of jurisdiction, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of the civil Court is also barred so far as other reliefs are concerned. Only the relief regarding the correction of entries in the revenue record is barred under section 172(2)(vi) of the Revenue Act and not the other reliefs indicated above. For the sake of convenience, section 53 of the Revenue Act is reproduced below.
'53. Suit for the declaratory decrees by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record.---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).'
' Similarly in the case reported as Ghulam Rasul v. Hidayat Ullah [1987 M LD 35], it was observed that if the name of an owner does not appear in the subsequent revenue record, such a person can establish his right by filing a declaratory suit in view of the provisions contained under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act.
' In Mir Rehman Khan v. Sardar Asdullah Khan [PLD 1983 Quetta 52], it was held that Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act only excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to hear the matters which exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities; if the dispute relates to the title of the immovable property, a civil Court has got the jurisdiction to try the suit."
Keeping in view the facts of this case, the principle of law enunciated in this judgment is also fully attracted. Therefore, we are constrained to accept his appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and remand the case to the trial Court for conducting the proceedings according to law and deciding the same on merits.
' With these observations, this appeal stands disposed off. No order as to costs.