' This is appeal against the order dated 9-5-1973 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu whereby he set aside the order of the Mukhtiarkar Johi and remanded the case back to him with the directions to comply with the directions given in the original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division.
2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 11th July, 1969 respondent Ghulam Muhammad filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner Dadu for cancellation of the entry in the Record of Rights in respect of S. Nos. 137 and 140 of Deh Phulji Taluka Johi on the ground that these S. Nos. Were actually purchased by his father Soomar through registered sale-deed and have remained in his possession but these were entered in the Record-of-Rights in the name of the appellant Muhammad Hassan and others fraudulently. The Deputy Commissioner, Dadu after hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant record cancelled the entrits in the Record-of-Rights which stood in the name of the appellant Muhammad Hassan and others vide his order dated 22-9-1970 and directed the Mukhtiarkar Johi to make fresh enquiry in the matter and make entry on the basis of evidence to be produced by the parties before him. The appellant Muhammad Hasan being aggrieved with the above order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, who after hearing the parties and going through the relevant record, rejected the appeal of the appellant Muhammad Hassan and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 3-3-1971. Further, it was directed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order quoted above that the aggrieved party might seek his remedy in the Civil Court, if so desired. The Mukhtiarkar Johi, in persuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner re-heard the parties and re-examined the record.
He, after hearing the parties and re-examining the relevant record, directed Ghulam Muhammad respondent to seek his remedy in the competent Civil Court vide his order dated 14-2-1972. Being aggrieved with the above order of the Mukhtiarkar Johi, respondent Ghulam Muhammad made an application to the Minister of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Revenue, Sind who forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu for consideration and necessary action. The Deputy Commissioner, Dadu treated this application as an appeal and summoned the parties and heard them through their counsels. He, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of the Mukhtiarkar Johi vide the impugned order, hence this appeal :
3. The counsel for the appellant-urged the following points :-
(i) That the application of the respondent was addressed to the Minister and not to the D.C. As such it could not be entertained as the Revenue appeal.
(ii) The application was neither in the form of appeal nor was it accompanied by the order appealed against. Besides, it was time-barred by one year and no application for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act was moved by the petitioner.
(iii) The entry in the Records-of-Rights which is sought to be cancelled was made as far back as in 1927 whereby the disputed S. Nos. Were entered in the name of the appellant's father and it was authenticated by the Deputy Collector after considering all claims and objections against entries in the old village form in 1959. In village forms also the disputed land is shown in the name of the present appellant's father. At the time of preparation of new Village Form proper and prior publicity was done but even then neither the present respondent nor his father did raise any objection nor did they put any claim over the disputed land.
(iv) During the last 43 years, neither the respondent nor his father claimed the land nor even applied for mutation of Record in their name ; and
(v) The appeal was not preferred in the form and it was time barred and D. C. Had no jurisdiction to decide the matter at the belated stage.
' The counsel cited the following PLDs in support of his above contentions :-
(1) PLD 1956 W. P. (Rev.) 32.
(2) PLD 1958 W. P.. (Rev.) 67.
(3) PLD 1961 W. P. (Rev.) 69.
(4) PLD 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 03.
(5) PLD 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 54.
(6) PLD 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 90.
(7) PLD 1971 Sind (Rev.) 18.
(8) PLD 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 88.
(9) PLD 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 1.
(10) PLD 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 45.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has urged the following points :-
(i) The respondent's father Soomar purchased the above land under registered sale-deed on 2-7- 1917. Thereafter he used to cultivate it up to 1942. In 1942 Soomar died. From 1942 to 1965, the above land remained uncultivated. At the time of death- of deceased Soomar, he left only one son who is respondent in this case and at that time, he was 9 years old. Village Form VI-A i,e,, Number Shumari of 1948-49 shows the name of Khatedar as Soomar (father of the respondent). Field Book of 1960- 61 also indicates that the land was in the name of Soomar (father of the respondent) and it was 'shown as uncultivated. Deh Form VIII A of 1962-63 also stows Khata of Soomar and S. Nos. 137 and 140 as uncultivated. `Khasra Girdawari, register from 1962-63 to 1965-66 also shows Soomar to be Khatedar of the land which is shown as uncultivated ;
(ii) The appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu in respect of the fraudulent entries made in the names of the appellant, who after perusing the record and hearing the parties cancelled the same vide his first order dated 22-9-1970 and directed the Mukhtiarkar Johi in unequivocal terms to hold enquiry, take evidence from the parties and decide the case on merits.
The order dated 14-2-1972 passed by the Mukhtiarkar Johi was ex Fine and the respondent Ghulam Muhammad made an application to the Revenue Minister which was forwarded to the D. C. Dadu for necessary action. The D.C. Ultimately, treated it as an appeal and decided the case in his favour ;
(iii) From the above documents, it is proved That possession has, all along remained with the respondent and, therefore, the contentions raised by the appellant's counsel are not maintainable, inasmuch as the documentary evidence produced by the appellant's counsel has not proved undisturbed possession of the appellant ;
(iv) The property in dispute was acquired by father of the respondent through a registered sale- deed and as such under no obligation of law, respondent's father was required to furnish such information to the Revenue authorities. In this connection the counsel relied upon section 135-J of Old Sind Land Revenue Code according to which no person in the case of a registered sale-deed is required to report the transaction to the Revenue authorities for getting necessary entry made in the Revenue Records, as the Sub-Registrar himself is supposed to send extract copy of the same to the Taluka Mukht.
' He also quoted authority PLD 1962 W. P. (Kar.) 253 i,e,, "Entry in the Revenue Record is sufficient."
(v) It is not a question of inheritance and Foti Khata Badal or otherwise but it is a question of entries made on the basis of registered sale-deed which automatically should have been made in the Revenue Record by the Revenue Authorities. The title of the property is not in dispute, therefore, the question of challenging the jurisdiction of Revenue Court does not arise. The entries in the Revenue Record are made for fiscal purposes and the mutation is the index of possession ;
(vi) The father of the appellant expired in 1942 and the Khata was changed in the name of the respondent in 1965 which clearly shows that the Revenue authorities were not supposed to make entry in the name of the appellant who slept over the matter for a number of years. Therefore, his argument that the respondent was silent and did not get his claim adjudicated upon and as such entries are not supposed to be changed, is obsolutely not tenable. On the contrary, the appellant was silent and did not get his claim adjudicated upon for over 30 years. He further contended that this Court has got jurisdiction. In this connection he placed reliance on PLD 1974 Sind Rev. 22 which reads as under :- " West Pakistan Land Revenue Act section 42 (6) (8) verification of correctness of entries whole scheme of Act pertaining to mutation not to determine rights of parties in land without affording them opportunity of being heard. Procedure prescribed under section 42 mandatory."
' It has been further held by the Additional Member Board of Revenue that Courts have got jurisdiction to see the correctness and legality of the entries maintained by the Revenue Officer and they are empowered under section 41(6) (8), West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, which reads as under :- "(6) A Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, inquire into the correctness of all entries in the Register of mutations and into all such acquisition as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which under the foregoing subsections report should have been made to the Patwari and entries made in that Register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record-of-rights acquired.
(8) An enquiry or an order under subsection (6) shall be made in the common assembly in estate to which the mutation, which is the subject-matter of the enquiry, relates."
5. Heard the arguments and examined the record. From the arguments advanced by the counsels of the parties and relevant record produced before me, I am fully convinced that it is not a case of inheritance or change of Khata but it is a case of correction of the entries in the Revenue Record. In the present case, the title of the property has beenll challenged by the respective parties and it has become the case of complicated nature and the question of law and fact is involved in the matter 'A which is to be decided by the Civil Courts. Consequently the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the Mukhtiarkar for enquiry is not proper. Obviously where complicated question of law and fact is involved, it would not perhaps be advisable for the Revenue authorities to determine these questions.
6. In view of the above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner Dadu is set aside and the parties are directed to seek their remedy in the competent Civil Court.