' Karam Ali since deceased and represented by heirs, the present petitioners, filed a declaration of his holdings under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang found the holding 240.950 Acres equivalent to 12819 produce index units. Leaving the permissible maximum of 8,000, land worth 4819.940 units equivalent to 739.152 Kanals, about 92 Acres was resumed vide order dated 12-10-1977. In this order, it was mentioned that "the declarant has while submitting the declaration form given the choice of surrendering excess land in village Noor Allah Dad and Kurk Muhammadi. He has now submitted an application dated 9-10-1977 to the effect that he is an old illiterate hand and due to some misunderstanding, he has given the choice of surrendering the land in the above mentioned two villages, but now he wants to surrender excess land in village Kurk Muhammad only.
2. The declarant filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 12-10-1977, in which he complained that he was not given adequate opportunity to give choice to surrender the excess area. The appeal was accepted and it was remanded with the direction that the appellant may be given a fresh choice for surrendering his excess land. This is vide order of the Land Commissioner dated 5-12-1977. In remand proceedings, the declarant having not appeared, the previous order dated 12-10-1977 was maintained. This is vide order of the D.L.C. Dated 15-5-1978. The declarant filed an appeal saying that he -*as wrongly proceeded ex parte. It was accepted and case remanded to give him an opportunity to surrender land of his choice. This is vide order of the Land Commissioner dated 15-5-1979.
3. The declarant, then, filed a revision petition. The learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner observed that the main grievance urged was that the declarant's holding had not been evaluated correctly in terms of PIUs and that as a consequence thereof much more area has been resumed in favour of the Punjab Land Commission under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977. In reply to a Court question, he stated that this contention was raised in appeal before the learned Land Commissioner, but he did not touch this important aspect of the case. In support of this statement he was taken through ground No, 5 of the memorandum of appeal which was found relevant. As is evident from the record, the petitioners owned land in three villages of tehsil Chiniot, namely, Kurk Muhammadi, Noor Allah Dad and Chak No, 438. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to maintain that the land belonging to his client in village Kurk Muhammadi is either 'Chahi Nehri' or 'Banjar Qadeem', but the revenue field staff treating the entire land as 'Nul Chahi' has assessed it at the rate of 58 PIUs per Acre whereas the units prescribed for 'Chahi Nehri' and 'Banjar Qadeem' are 48 and 38 respectively. Copies of Register Haqdaran Zamin and Khasra Girdawari of village Kurk Muhammadi produced by him indicate the classification of soil as 'Nul Chahi' except a few Acres which are 'Banjar Qadeem'. On recalculation of PIUs it appears that the objection raised by the learned counsel was not valid. This position has been admitted by him. Similar is the position with respect to the land in village Noor Ahmed Dad." Since there was a dispute about the land in another village i.e, Chak No, 438, the petition was accepted, impugned orders set aside and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner. This is viding order dated 3-12-1979.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings before the D.L.C., an application was made for direction to the Assistant Commissioner to visit the disputed land and then to calculate the produce index units of the kind of soil. A Naib Tehsildar made a report about the village Kurk Muhammadi on 8-11- 1980 which was endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner. The learned D.L.C. Vide his order dated 11- 3-1981 on the basis of fresh scrutiny in respect of village Noor Allah Dad and Chak No, 438 allowed relief of 78 PIUs to the declarant but declined the request for correction of Girdawari relating to Kharif 1976 in respect of the classification of land entered in record with reference to the position obtaining on the spot for the reason that "It is explicitly clear in the order of the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner vide order dated 3-12-1979 that there is no ground for any change in the evaluation in terms of PIUs of the declarant's holding in mauza Kurk Muhammadi. In any case correction of Khasra Girdawari at this stage even if contention of the counsel for declarant is substituted, cannot be ordered in view of para. 7-3 of the Land Records Manual". This is vide order dated 1-3-1981. The declarant having died in the meanwhile, the appeal of the successors was dismissed by the Land Commissioner on 3-5-1981, revision by the Chief Land Commissioner on 3- 9-1981 and second revision by the Senior Member, Federal Land Commissioner vide order dated 17- 11-1981.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the declarant was entitled to get and the Land Reforms Authorities were bound to examine the entries in the relevant Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 76 to see whether those were correct or not and if not correct, to correct the same and calculate produce index units on the basis of the corrected entries. According to the case of petitioners, the entries in respect of village Kurk Muhammadi were incorrect and that on their application, the D.L.C. Had called for a report and the Naib Tehsildar reported on 8-11-1980, after spot inspection, that the land was of different classification than as entered in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 76.
6. The learned counsel for respondents authorities submitted that under the law, the declarant was required and the authorities were to act on the basis of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 76. If these were sought to be corrected, recourse had to be made to the Revenue Authorities and not the Land Reforms Authorities. Secondly that the plea of petitioners for recalculation of units on the ground of wrong classification of soil is an afterthought and without basis. The learned counsel referred to the application of the declarant annexed with the writ petition as annexure 'E' in which it was sought that the units be recalculated. It was submitted that this application was an interpolation in the official record. The original of annexure 'E' is at page 329. On this it is recorded:- ' Then, there appears to be initials of the D.L.C., Jhang. The learned counsel referred to page 238 on the file and submitted that the order contemporaneously passed/on the application is to the following effect:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The learned counsel submitted that the application dated 9-10-1977 Annexure 'E' is a clear case of interpolation as on the application made on 9-10-1977 the order contemporaneously passed related to surrender of land in village Kurk Muhammadi and not for recalculation of units of the said village. Secondly, initials of the D.L.C. On the application and contemporaneous order do not tally.
Thirdly, the application though stated to have been presented by counsel was not even signed by him. Lastly and equally importantly that when the matter came up soon thereafter before the D.L.C.
On 12-10-1977, the plea was not for recalculation of units of the village Kurk Muhammadi but for surrender of land of that village. He, then, contended that the plea of the declarant for recalculation of units of this village Kurk Muhammadi was rejected by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner vide order dated 3-12-1979 and this was not challenged further. It became final. In subsequent proceedings, this plea could not be taken and was rightly rejected. Lastly, he submitted that out of the resumed land about 92 Acres, 40 Acres have been transferred to the sitting tenants under the Land Reforms Act on 22-4-1981 and mutations have also been sanctioned in their favour on 23-8- 1981. These persons are not party to the proceedings and on order adverse to their interest can be passed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record with their assistance. We have examined the record with care to see if there has been a wrong done to the declarant. In the beginning, the case of the declarant was that he would surrender land in village Kurk Muhammadi, the estate in question. There was no plea that the units of land in that estate were wrongly calculated. For the first time, the matter was urged before the learned Additional Chief Land Commissioner and he rejected the plea vide order dated 3-12-1979. This order was not challenged any further. Thereafter, it was not possible for any authority to allow this plea to be raised, nor, that could be given effect to. The report of Naib Tehsildar dated 8-11-1980 about the entries in Khasra Girdawari contemporaneously made for Kharif 76, was not only belated but it would also be difficult for anyone to say what was the state of crops four years earlier. The report has not been accepted by the D.L.C. Nor by the appellate or revisional authorities. The reason advanced is that the entries were not sought to be corrected in accordance with law. No exception can be taken thereto. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Land Reforms Authorities should have themselves classified the land and calculated the units on the basis of the position at the spot and not with reference to entries in Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 76 is without force for the reasons that not only that this was not asked for from the Land Reforms Authorities at the relevant time, but no proof has been brought on the record either that the classification and entries in Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 76 were not accurate by production of either preceding or subsequent Khasra Girdawaris. The plea for re-calculation of units cannot succeed in circumstances of the case in these proceedings, especially for the reason that a case was made out in the petition relying on Annexure 'E' that the declarant had asked for re-calculation of units vide application dated 9-10-1977. From the original record, it appears that an application to this effect has been placed at page 329 which application does not conform to the contemporaneously made order of the same date by the D.L.C., which is about the surrendering of land in the estate in question. Nor the plea about re-calculation was made at the earliest before the D.L.C. As would appear from his order dated 12-10-1977. The contentions of the learned counsel for respondent's authorities on the point and about interpolation have weight. The way the case has been made up would disentitle the petitioners from relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Out of the resumed land measuring about 92 Acres, 40 Acres have already been transferred in favour of the sitting tenants on 23-8-1984. These transferees have not been impleaded as parties in these proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that with setting aside of the impugned orders, rights created in their favour would automatically lapse, lose sight of the elementary principle of law that nobody can be deprived of his rights without being heard.
' In view of what has been stated above, there is no force of merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.