JUDGMENTMUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-This judgment shall also dispose of Writ Petition No.2713 of 1988 involving identical questions of facts and law.
2. In this constitutional petition, the orders dated 5.10.1987 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the petitiooner's revision petition and order dated 10.2.1986 passed by respondent No.3 accepting the revision petition of the respondent No.1, against judgments and decrees passed by the revenue Courts below decreeing the suit of the petitioner against respondent No.1 for recovery of rent of the land, have been challenged.
3. The suit filed by the present petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,961.28 as rent from kharif 1973 to Rabi 1978 regarding land comprising khasra numbers 99 and 100 measuring 14 kanals 8 marlas was decreed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, through judgment dated 30.11.1976. The petitioner claimed that he was the owner and landlord of this land amd respondent No.1 was cultivating the same as his tenant. The respondent No.1 denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenaut. The Assistant Collector First Grade after recording evidence and appraising the same held that existence of relationship of landlord and tenant was proved and decreed the suit through judgmentd dated 30.11.1970. Feeling aggrieved respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Collector which was dismissed by judgment dated 21.1.1980. The respondent No.1 filed further apppeal before Additional Commissioner Revenue which was accepted through judgment dated 10.2.1986. The judgments and decrees of both the Revenue Courts below were set aside and it was held that respondent No.1 was co-sharer in khata where the land in dispute was situated therefore he could not be a tenant and the remedy of the petitioner was to sue for recovery of share of the profit or settlement of accounts. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue through order dated 5.10.1987 for similar reasons.
4. ' On the other hand, the application made by the respondents 1 to 7 in writ petition No.2713 of 1988 for correction of khasra girdawari so as to change the entries thereof showing the said respondents l.To 7 as tenants on the land in dispute under the present petitioner and to record that the said respondents were in possession of the land as co-sharers. This application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Sialkot through order dated 2.10.1983. In this order it was also observed that land in question along with other land was owned jointly by the owners including the present petitioner and respondents 1 to 7. This order was assailed by respondents 1 to 7 by filing revision petition before the Additional Commissioner Revenue Gujranwala which was accepted through order dated 10.2.1986. It was held that said spondcnts were joint owners in the khata therefore the entries in the khasra girdawari should be accordingly corrected. It appears that this revision petition was disposed of along with the appeal filed against the judgment and decree of recovery of rent which had arisen from the suit filed by the petitioner, which is subject matter of the above mentioned connected writ petition. The petitioner's revision petition filed before the Member, Board of Revenue was dismissed by order dated 5.10.1987 on similar reasons.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.2511 of 1988 against whom the suit for recovery of rent was decreed, alleged in the written-statement that he was not tenant of the petitioner, but did not produce any evidence in the suit to establish that he was joint owner of the land and as such was not tenant under the petitioner. The argument has force. The petitioner produced Fard Arazi as Ext.P2 and copy of khasra girdawari as Ext J*3. On the basis of this documentary evidence as also the other oral evidence Assistant Collector 1st Grade, held that relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was established. The Collector in his order dated 21.1.1980 also upheld this finding while dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1.However, the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 10.2.1986 has not referred to any documentary or oral evidence produced in the , case on the basis of which he assumed that the resppndent No.1 was joint owner^ of the land in question. The findings recorded by Additional Commissioner shows that he proceeded on the assumption that respondent No.1 was joint owner of the land. It was remarked by the two Revenue Courts below that respondent No.1 failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that he was joint owner of the land. The Member, Board of Revenue also did not take into consideration that in the suit for recovery of rent no documentary evidence was produced by respondent No.1. To establish that he was joint woner of the land and that khasra numbers in dispute were not in his cultivating possession as tenant under the petitioner.The orders passed by Member, Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner dated 5.10.1987 and 10.2.1986 respectively have been passed on conjectures and not on the basis of evidence produced on the record. The documents Ext.p.2 and Ext.P.3 which were produced in evidence by the petitioner on the strength of which his suit was decreed have not been adverted to. The said orders, therefore, are not sustainable in law.
6. Writ Petition No.2511 of 1988 is accepted. The orders passed by Membber (Judicial) Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala dated 5.10.1987 and 10.2.1986 respectively are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and are quashed. In the result, the appeal filed by respondent before the Additional Commissioner shall be deemed to be pending which shall be decided in accordance with law.7.
Writ Petition No.2713 of 1988 has arisen from the proceedings initiated by respondents 1 to 7 for correction of khasra girdawari, is also to be accepted.The Addl. Commissioner in his impugned order dated 10.2.1986 merely placed reliance for passing the said orders on the observation made by the Collector that the land was jointly owned by the land owners with the respondents 1 to 7 applicants. There was no material on the basis of which this observation was made by Collector though the orders passed by the Collector was in favour of the petitioner because he dismissed the application of responndents 1 to 7 for correction of khasra girdawari. Neither Member, Board of Revenue, nor the Additional Commissioner applied judicial mind independently to the matter. The impugned orders passed by Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue and Addl. Commissioner dated 5.10.1987 and 10.2.1986 respectively impugned in this writ petition are also not sustainable. This writ petitidta is also accepted. The said orders are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of on legal effect and quashed. The appeal filed by respondents 1 to 7 before the addl. Commissioner shall be deemed to be pending which shall be deeded in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.