' This order will dispose of the two revisions filed against the single order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, dated 22-4-1985, since involving common question of law and facts.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of these two revisions are that the respondents moved two applications for the correction of the entries of Register Girdawari which were accepted by the learned District Collector, Gujranwala to the extent that Ahmad Shall son of Khair Din was to be recorded as lessee for Kharif 1979 to Rabi, 1982 with Aftab Ahmad and others as tenants under the lessee. The learned District Collector had given these findings after he had investigated these facts in the open assembly of the village. The petitioners having lost in appeals are now in revisions against the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the contention that the powers of the District collectors to amend the entries of Register Girdawari under para. 9.9 of the Land Records Manual do not extend beyond correcting clerical errors and apparent mistakes in the record. It is -his contention that the District Collector cannot interfere in the recorded entries of Register Girdawari if the nature of dispute is such as to require an elaborate enquiry. I am afraid I cannot contribute to this argument. In each case where an allegation or complaint of incorrect entry in the Register Girdawari is raised, an enquiry becomes necessary to establish the truth or otherwise of such complaint. An enquiry is, therefore, a necessary and logical consequence of a complaint moved for correction in the entries of Register Girdawari. It is a known fact that the tenancy rights have become valuable in as far as they establish the pre-emption claim and also substantial rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, which fact motivates the Revenue Staff on the instigation of the interested parties in making incorrect entries of Register Girdawari. The mere fact that an enquiry is required to be conducted does not, therefore, circumscribe the jurisdiction of the District Collector in acting under para. 9.9 of Land Records Manual.
4. In view of the observations made above and the fact that the concurrent findings of the lower Courts have not been showing to suffer from any material irregularity, the two revisions are dismissed in limine.
1