The brief facts of this case are that Ghulam Muhammad the petitioner is stated to have purchased 128 Kanals of land situated in Chak No.45/P Dakhli, Tehsil Khanpur District Rahimyar Khan at the rate of Rs.25,000 per acre. He also purchased an Ihata measuring 2 Kanals for Rs.10,000 from respondents Nos. 1 to 7. It was covenanted between the parties that the respondents would acquire proprietary rights and execute a registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. This was not done and the petitioner has sought the assistance of the learned trial Court for specific performance of the contract. The suit is sub judice. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are stated to have applied to the Collector for correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari as the petitioner was shown in self-cultivation of the land in dispute. The Tehsildar was deputed to go to the spot and make his report. The Tehsildar reported that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari were wrong which should be corrected. He also proposed departmental action against the Patwari concerned, who had made these entries. The Collector based his decision on the report of the Tehsildar and permitted the entries in the Khasra Girdawari to be rectified. The petitioner lodged an appeal before Mr. Manzoor Hussain, Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, who dismissed the appeal on 9-7-1988 which was directed against the order of the Collector Rahimyar Khan. The petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, but was unsuccessful on 7-8-1988. All these orders have been assailed in this writ petition.
2. Clause (vi) of para. (2) of section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, envisages that the civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction. In the matter cf correction of an entry in a record of rights, periodical record or register of mutations. Para. 99 of the Land Record Manual empowers the Collector to correct the record when there is some clerical error and patent mistake in the Khasra Girdawari. It shows that the Collector is empowered to correct an entry in the periodical record.
Khasra Girdawari is not a part of record of rights and may be termed as a periodical record.
3. With reference to Muhammad Safdar Ali lqbal v. Sher Muhammad etc. 1980 CLC 520, it has been contended that the entry in the Khasra Girdawari cauld not be corrected during .The pendency of a civil suit. In the aforementioned precedent, the Collector had rectified the entries of the Khasra Girdawari without issuing a notice to the petitioner and in a pre-emption case it was intended to create a defence in favour of the respondents to be a joint tenant. Orders of the Revenue authorities were interfered with in the said precedent. In the instant case, both the parties have contested the application of the respondents for correction of the entries and the Tehsildar had gone to the spot and made his report in favour of the respondents which was relied on by the Collector and necessary corrections were made.
4.It may be noted that the petitioner has got entered in the Khasra Girdawari that he was in self- cultivation of the land in dispute. The word 'self-cultivation' is intended for the owners only. He was only equipped with an agreement to sell and no registered sale-deed has yet been executed in his favour nor any mutation has been attested, at the instance of the vendors. This entry of self- cultivation was, therefore, rectified. The Partwari concerned was also directed to face the departmental action. There is, otherwise, no legal impediment in the rectification of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari by a competent forum, where a civil action is pending. The Tehsildar had the facility of spot inspection who submitted his report in favour of the respondents. The learned Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab have concurrently found that the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari was justified. In the circumstances, I see not merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same in limine.