' This is a revision petition against the order, dated 29-3-1971, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner regarding mutation of S. No, 170 of Deh Mori Rayti, Taluka and District Hyderabad.
2. The facts of the case are that the disputed S. No, has been allotted to the petitioner in satisfaction of his claim as evacuee property abandoned by evacuee Thanumal. The Khata of 90 paisas share of the S. No, 170 was only mutated in favour of the petitioner by Mukhtiarkar, Hyderabad as according to entries in revenue record 90 paisas belonged to Thanumal and 10 paisas belonged to Mst. Khatoo. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Mukhtiarkar to the Settlement Officer, Hyderabad, which was rejected by the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, vide his order, dated 30-8-1969, on the ground that the issue involved pertained to Rehabilitation and Settlement side and the Revenue Courts were not to go into it vide section 25 of the Displaced Persons Settlement and Rehabilitation Act, 1958. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, which was also rejected vide the impugned order and petitioner was directed to seek his remedy in the civil Court, if he so desired.
3. The counsels for the parties urged the following points :- A. Counsel for the petitioner.-
(i) Original owner Shaikh Muhammad had died and his heirs had partitioned their land by Registered Deed whereby the disputed S. No, was given to his sons to the exclusion of the respondent and the mother of the respondent had consented on behalf of the respondent as the respondent was minor at that time. The sons had sold the entire S. No, to Doctor Nanikram in 1942 who in turn sold it to Seth Thanumal. Thanumal thus acquired rights in he whole S. No, He migrated to India and consequently the whole S. No, was evacuee property. The entry in the Revenue Record showing that the respondent had still some share in the disputed S. No, is not correct.
(ii) Entire S. No, had been allotted to the petitioner. He is in possession of the land. According to section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, only the Custodian has jurisdiction in the matter and revenue and civil Courts have no jurisdiction to exclude the property from the evacuee pool, even though it is included therein correctly or incorrectly vide PLD 1966 Lah.
953.
B. Counsel for the respondent.-
(i) It is admitted fact that Nanikram had 14 annas share in the disputed land and he could, therefore, sell only that share to Thanumal was declared evacuee and only the rights held by him in land are to be declared as evacuee.
(ii) Till 1961, the property had remained as non-evacuee and it could not be treated as evacuee thereafter vide section 3 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Act, vide PLD 1966 Kar.
375.
(iii) The registered documents can be acted upon only to the extent of entries in revenue record vide para. 14 of remarks on the V. F. VII of the Village Manual. Even in case of civil Court decrees, it is not to be absolutely acted upon and revenue record has to be referred vide para. 4 of the Standing Order No, 6.
(iv) The respondent is enjoying her share.
4. I have considered the case and seen the record. According to entry No, 56, dated 26-8-1941 of V.
F. VII of Deh Mori, the respondent had got share to the extent of 1 an 9 pies in the disputed S. No, which has not been transferred in the name of Thanumal. The contention of the petitioner has been that the mother of the respondent has consented on behalf of the respondent, whereby the entire S. No, went to the sobs of the original land-owner and that proper entries were not made in the revenue record. The entry in the revenue record regarding the partition is as old as 1941. If the petitioner is aggrieved about the authenticity of Record of Rights on account of any fraud or omission that might have been made in the preparation of record, be can seek remedy in the proper Court of law. This disputed share has been in the name of the respondent, who is a Muslim and whose share was allotted to the petitioner and who it is alleged is in continuous possession of the same. The counsel for Mst. Khatoo states that she is enjoying her share and is therefore, not an aggrieved party. The petitioner, if aggrieved and feels that he has a valid case, may move the Custodian or any other competent authority to seek) redress. There is, therefore, no justification for interference with the impugned order and consequently the revision petition is dismissed.
Revision rejected.