SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.--- Muhammad Khan, the present petitioner instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction wherein it was averred that the land in dispute, detailed under paragraph No.1 of the plaint, was situated at Village Khan Jajja, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot and he was lawful owner of the land measuring 27 kanals, 01 marla according to his legal share from the said land. On 26.09.2000, the plaintiff purchased 20 kanals, 04 marlas land from his father through registered Hibba-Nama and had become owner of the total land measuring 47 kanals, 05 marlas. It was further narrated that on 13.02.1965, the said land i.e. 27 kanals, 01 marla was purchased from Mst. Begum Bibi widow of Ali Gohar from his (Ali Gohar's) share of total land measuring 180 kanals, 18 marlas, her legal share as 1/6th became as 30 kanals, 03 marlas, on the basis of decree dated 16.06.1956 passed by the Civil Court and the said share was got mutated in her favour through Mutation No.1403 Dated 26.02.1960. It was further maintained that on 28.06.1995, defendants Nos.1 to 6 moved an application to the District Officer (Revenue), Sialkot for correction of the said mutation; the said application was accepted on 15.10.2003 by the said officer. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the present petitioner assailed the same before the Collector/Executive District Officer, Sialkot by filing appeal, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2004. In suit, it was prayed that in the light of the judgment and decree dated 16.06.1956, the orders dated 15.10.2003 and 04.08.2004 were void ab initio and had no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner and the same being nullity in the eye of law were liable to be declared as null and void.
The respondents Nos.1 to 5 instituted a separate suit for permanent injunction praying that petitioner be restrained from mortgaging the suit land with the bank. Both the suits were consolidated after submission of their respective written statements.
Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed consolidated issues and evidence of the parties was invited, which needful was done in pro and contra. The learned trial Court vide impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 dismissed both the suits. Both the parties preferred separate three appeals against the said judgment and decree; the learned appellate Court vide impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 dismissed all the appeals; hence, the instant civil revision.
2. During course of arguments, the main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the score that the learned Courts below failed to apply correct law on the subject rather failed to adjudicate the matter with independent judicious mind, as correction of long standing entries in the revenue record did not come in the domain of the revenue hierarchy but to recourse the civil Court, being court of ultimate jurisdiction. Moreover, if at all the respondents were aggrieved of the judgment of learned trial court dated 16.06.1956, they would have filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. instead of moving an application for correction of entries incorporated in the mutation No.1403 dated 26.02.1960 but this aspect has totally been ignored by the learned Courts below while delivering the impugned judgments and decrees. Both the learned Courts below have neither read the evidence on record nor perused the documents with the suit and have rendered the impugned judgments and decrees mere on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence, by allowing the civil revision in hand, the impugned judgments and decrees may be set aside, consequent whereof the suit instituted by the petitioner may be decreed, as prayed for. Relies on Sameen Khan and 4 others v. Haji Mir Zad and others (2002 CLC 754 Peshawar), Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2004 SCMR 517) and Mst. Mumtaz Begum through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Shafique and others (PLD 2009 Lahore 418).
3. Avowing the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 5 has argued that the revenue authorities have not changed the verdict of the Civil Court dated 16.06.1956, rather have made correction with regard to implementation of the same in its true spirit and the revenue Courts enjoy ample jurisdiction under section 172(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 in this respect; therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly reached to the conclusion and have rightly non-suited the petitioner. The impugned judgments and decrees being well-versed and well-balanced do not call for any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction as both the learned Court below have exercised vested jurisdiction in an apt way. Dismissal of the instant revision petition has been prayed for.
Relies on Dilmir and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others (PLD 1991 Lahore 314), Malik Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Malik Hameedullah etc. (PLJ 2001 Revenue 5) and Dildar Ahmad and others v. Member (Judicial-Ill) BOR Punjab. Lahore and another (2013 SCMR 906).
4. Heard.
5. In the present case, the matter is only with regard to correct implementation of the judgment and decree dated 16.06.1956 in the revenue record. For ready reference, the operative paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under: `Issue No.2 From the parties evidence it is amply clear that the said Hukam Din left only two heirs i.e. the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The parties' counsel agree that the parties are governed by Hanfi Law of inheritance. The plaintiff, and defendant No.1 are, therefore, entitled to share 1/3 and 2/3 of the land belonging to their father. As their father owned half of the suit land the plaintiff and defendant No.1 will get 1/6th and 1/3rd of it respectively. The issue is answered in these terms.
In view of my above findings the plaintiff's suit for joint possession of 1 /6th share of the suit land is decreed with costs..... (Underline mine)
It is evident from the above lines of the judgment dated 16.06.1956 that father of Mst. Begum Bibi and Rehmat Ali, predecessor in interest of the respondents Nos.1 to 5 and a specific share i.e. 1/6th share in the half of the disputed property was decreed in favour of the plaintiff of that suit i.e. Mst.
Begum Bibi, but while entering mutation No.1403 Dated 26.02.1960 excess land, involving total land instead of half of the land was decreed; therefore, matters wherein only correction with regard to rectifying any mistake in implementing the Courts' decrees or any other clerical mistake in the record of rights, periodical entry or register of mutation, especially when there appears no controversy regarding title of any of the party, the jurisdiction lies with the Revenue Courts and section 172(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this regard, as only entries of the mutation No.1403 were challenged and were sought to be incorporated in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 16.06.1956, which was still intact and had attained finality. In this regard enlightenment is sought from judgment of the Apex Court of Country reported as Dildar Ahmad and others v. Member (Judicial-III) BOR, Punjab, Lahore and another (2013 SCMR 906) and Dilmir and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others (PLD 1991 Lahore 314).
In addition to the above, when the judgment and decree dated 16.06.1956 has not been challenged or said to be incorrect while moving application for correction before the revenue hierarchy, the arguments that application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. ought to have been filed instead of the said application for correction, have no force, because no allegation. of fraud or misrepresentation has been leveled; therefore, the same is discarded.
6. Pursuant to the above, the learned Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, rather have exercised vested jurisdiction by appreciating and construing law on the subject in an apt way. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below, being upto the dexterity and based on proper appraisal of evidence on record, do not call for any interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
7. So far as the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, with utmost respect, the same has different facts and circumstances and does not render any assistance or help to the petitioner's case being on different footing.
8. Nutshell of the discussion above is that the instant civil revision being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.